The Allanak Problem

[triste]

It isn't a job interview. It's more like auditioning for a role in a play.

If some of us are tired of being type cast I suppose there are other stages.

If it's some weird community theatre where only Bob and Fred can play the leading roles because the producers just love them, I suppose there are other stages.

I'd rather see all of our talents represented though. Seems like it'd be neat. Good idea Barsook.

[Barsook]

Your welcome all, but thank you to whoever first brought up the idea on Discord. Friday, I think? I'm surprised that no one brought it up before me. Not sure if I sounded snarky when I posed that.

The main reason is to allow high turnover for certain Leadership roles and reduce the untoucableness of said roles. The problem is that plots die with the players of said leadership roles, but it doesn't seem to be that way based on what Vesekla said below:

Also to add -- Staff often have a plan or vision for the role and its goals. My most recent application for an Allanaki Templar was declined due to 'wanting to go a different direction' with the role. It was not a fault of my application, of my playtimes, or my goals for the role. They just did not line up with where Staff wanted the role to be at that moment.

I kind of wish that instead of the staff 100% allowing you to guess what the role and goals are if you haven't interacted with the previous leadership role, including Merchant House family members. But that's me and just applying blindly with my guess on what the staff is looking for because I was told to take a shot.

These are things to consider in acceptance or rejection of your PC concept -- It isn't necessarily a bad application. Or that you are a player they don't like, or that they didn't even like you and your application. It just doesn't mesh with how things are going IG, they got another applicant that ticks all the boxes, and they decide to pass.

I, too, have applied for many roles and been declined. But I don't let it turn into a chip on my shoulder.

Feedback is your best friend. Ask why it was rejected.

[Veselka]

I'm often told exactly why it was rejected. I'm honest about my playtimes, my goals, and my experience. I'm usually told 'we went with another app, you made it to the last round, but we wanted to go another direction this time'. That's more than enough for me? I don't go into a sponsored role application or special application thinking I deserve to be selected. I write the application as best I can, i'm as transparent as possible about my RL limitations, and go from there. I never take it personally if I'm not selected for a role, so I guess I don't sit awake at night wondering 'why not me'.

I think it's totally fine for Staff to pick who they think will do best in the role, at that moment, without being 100% transparent with every applicant as to why they weren't selected. It's a game. I have just as much fun (if not more, sometimes) playing a perfectly mundane concept I came up with myself, and with fewer limitations on what it can do or what it is capable of. It's tea or coffee to me, when it comes to sponsored roles vs non-sponsored roles.

[Shabago]

Fine. After a string of the same posts, let's go ahead and address it.

Each role-call that is put up varies drastically for response to it from the player base. Templars/Nobles tend to get more "bites" than others simply by nature of the role.

Triste, by nature of wanting a few brain cells used - here are 3 to explain how this works.

- You apply for a Templar. So do 14 other players. Guess what? 9 of those 14 have never played a Templar before, either. *gasp*
- 7 of those 9 players can actually engage and interact with 80 players due to their put forth play times, compared to your 3-5 players.
- 5 of those 9 players actually manage to stay alive for longer than a week on their sponsor/extended/spec-apps to avoid having to do the same thing all over again.
- Another 5 of 9 have some pretty kick-ass ideas that happen to line up with stories/plot hooks/content and direction of not just staff but jive with the player base in that particular area to elevate the fun for all.
- 12 of those 14 players don't constantly show themselves an absolute handful to deal with, on the GDB, Request tool, Discord and so on.

* Templars open for play once or twice a year, some times less. If 9 players haven't played, aren't a handful, have play times, ideas and so on to make them attractive to the role - Guess what? 3-4 years wait and reapplying to get it. (Not including any players that didn't apply the last time applying for the next 3-4)

* Nobles open for play roughly the same amount of times. Maybe a bit more often. Same applies as above. Cycle of 10 players to any one role call, some the same, some not.

* GMH, Byn, Garrison, Atrium, AoD, etc tend to see less interest and thus, there tends to be over-lap of acceptance for players willing to put in the time/effort to keep that area going for their fellow players and/or simply love the role.

* Someone gets 1 Templar, 1 Noble, 3 GMH, 2 Byn and 1 AoD over six RL years - ALL THE LEADERSHIP! BIAS! GARBAGE!

Or, you know - timing, repeated application attempts, lack of interest to X thing at that time from others and the various points as laid out above.

* = Example numbers as to how it can and often does work out.

[Barsook]

Shabago (and the other staff), here's a two part question. What is the ideal turnover rate for each type of role and are those rates getting met?

[triste]

The crux of this argument (and Barsook's follow up question) is the relative value of each category and the tremendous value of letting more players try these roles, not less.

The idea Barsook/whoever proposed puts value on new players getting a chance. This is the first category Shabago outlined. This is the theme of a lot of threads lately. If we were ascribing points to the rubric Shabago provided this should be worth a lot.

A lot of people replying directly to me seem to imply that the last "being a handful" category matters a lot, which is troubling as that comes down social bias by definition (what is "being a handful" besides a description of a preference for homophily and sameness). If we want a broad and interesting playerbase this last category should be worth very few points or none at all.

Thanks for the detailed response and opportunity to share our opinions on this, also interested in an answer to Barsook's follow up question.

[Barsook]

Exactly triste. I haven't really played a sponsored role call for more than a month in real time for multiple reasons with one of them not having a clue on what the staff wants from said role or just not given the chance to play what I applied for before I get a long lived and/or a character that I like. That happened to me enough times starting with the Kassigarh Noble Role back in June of 2012 to the most recent one. Because of this, I feel like I forced into clanned roles where I aim for promoted leadership roles instead of sponsored ones.

[Shabago]

Shabago (and the other staff), here's a two part question. What is the ideal turnover rate for each type of role and are those rates getting met?

Depends on the role and desired outcome of said role.

A Noble/Templar wants to pound away (while continuing to give fun/meet the role needs) to obtain Senior/Red Robe status and be stored with a "win"? Great. By theme, challenge and realism, that will likely take fifteen to twenty IC years of solid work.

Or, 2+ RL years.

After waiting N time to get the role, and if you're having fun with it/players are having fun around you? Great. I have no interest to implement 'Too bad, out of time.' standards.

As for meeting the metric of retiring/Senior/Red Robe status - I can only think of 4 off the top of my head?

The other roles tend to die well before that.

[Barsook]

I think 2+ IRL years is too long for all of them. To me, half of a year to two IRL years should be the limit. Well, mostly on the Highborns. They just get untouchable if allowed to keep going and doesn't allow others to the try the role. Either have a life cycle that is reasonable or something else.

[Brokkr]

Some sponsored roles have their feet under them in a week, and some take two or three months.  You can't ever tell how it is going to go.

I think 2+ IRL years is too long for all of them. To me, half of a year to two IRL years should be the limit. Well, mostly on the Highborns. They just get untouchable if allowed to keep going and doesn't allow others to the try the role. Either have a life cycle that is reasonable or something else.

Based on what?  The primary goal isn't to cycle as many players as we can through these roles.  The goal is to fill the roles with players that will use them to engage with the rest of the playerbase and drive (hopefully compelling) stories and plots.  And sometimes you will end up with a Timotheo who sticks around forever, and sometimes you will end up with a Templar that gets PK'd inside of 3 months.  And both may have great in terms of quality, which is what we are after.

The crux of this argument (and Barsook's follow up question) is the relative value of each category and the tremendous value of letting more players try these roles, not less.

Maybe tremendous value to certain players, but we are talking about the good of the game and the quality thereof, correct?  Which this suggestion isn't necessarily supportive of.

[Shalooonsh]

In my opinion, there's already plenty of upper echelon turnover. 

We see a decent amount of noble PC storage before the 6th month mark... and that hurts everything.  It hurts burgeoning storylines that the PC had started or were starting because of the PC's presence.  It hurts that new noble who started a month ago who's playtimes match up, and it hurts the older noble who knew exactly the way to hook your noble into a plotline as soon as your PC proves they're worthy.  High visibility, high impact characters that store after making a splash and getting people interested in them are a big vexation. 

Role permanency in high end roles allows for the continuation of plotlines, the preservation of in game history, and a tremendous source of newbie direction and interaction.  Long lived nobles like Raleris, Timotheo, Lapitia, Rusimell, and so many others do so much for the game's story by not only the force of incredible roleplay chops, but also by creating an interactive part of the fabric of a city.  They provide a force majeure that can impact people's stories again and again in profound ways.

[triste]

The crux of this argument (and Barsook's follow up question) is the relative value of each category and the tremendous value of letting more players try these roles, not less.

Maybe tremendous value to certain players, but we are talking about the good of the game and the quality thereof, correct?  Which this suggestion isn't necessarily supportive of.

It just kills me that in my lifetime I might never get to play a bigshot leader on a silly game I've played intermittently since high school. This game is just so hardcore that I am gonna permadeath IRL before I get to know what it's like to permadeath as a Templar.

But I am trying to find the positive in everything -- let's keep recruiting players, so we can keep justifying a certain number of leadership roles, and so that more people (maybe) might get a chance to lead. We need more newbs so all of us playing now can be fancy leaders later, VOTE VOTE VOTE: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-sanvean.html

[Is Friday]

Since my idea was brought over to this topic I would like to clarify my point.

- My suggestion is to limit nobles/templars to 18-24 RL months with good "closing" plots to wrap up what they want to do. This gives them direction and sensible closure. I think this happens in most cases, already.

What this "soft rule" does is mostly encourage players to accomplish goals as opposed to "survival". That's it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I wouldn't dream of telling nobles/templars that they have a limited shelf life. What I would do is just require that they create plots (with or without staff help), and push them forward. Simply requiring that they work to move the world would seem to be enough of a 'lifespan' to me.

If I were staff, perhaps I would be more lax with the red tape of helping them with their plots, since players can really bog down if they don't see advancement, but of course, I would be careful not to become too indulgent. But, having not been staff-side, I can only guess about how much staff already have to do. So perhaps I'd not be more lax at all.

But yeah, Friday, while I don't like shelf lives, I do agree that players of those roles should push forward the plots that move the world.

[Is Friday]

But yeah, Friday, while I don't like shelf lives, I do agree that players of those roles should push forward the plots that move the world.

I'm fine with nobles/templars who stick around forever but have a positive impact on the game.

What I don't really enjoy is nobles/templars who have acquired so much "meta-currency" that they are nigh unstoppable juggernauts in politics.

[Barsook]

I already said this a few times on Discord, but maybe Allanak doesn't resonate with me. Maybe I'm the problem, not Allanak.

What I don't really enjoy is nobles/templars who have acquired so much "meta-currency" that they are nigh unstoppable juggernauts in politics.

That.

[Shalooonsh]

I already said this a few times on Discord, but maybe Allanak doesn't resonate with me. Maybe I'm the problem, not Allanak.

What I don't really enjoy is nobles/templars who have acquired so much "meta-currency" that they are nigh unstoppable juggernauts in politics.

That.

Working as intended.  Someone who is capable of playing a high value target with a long lifespan in Zalanthas's most deadly location should bloody well have some contacts, some pull, and some clout.  Kudos to you for doing it right!

[Dar]

I'll confess, having a time limit in the back of my head will only encourage me to store. I work on something for half a year and in an epic showdown with another leader I lose and have my goals set back hard. Knowing that now, suddenly I am down and I'm half way out of time, I might just simply choose to store. That extra incentive to store will do no good for the game.

There is no benefit to putting a time limit on roles. I wouldnt mind established roles being challenged extra by the virtual world if they begin to accrue too much power.


I do think that Staff should be more generous with giving roles to people who will likely fail. Just provide enough opportunities for others to gain roles and let the better ones persevere. A good percentage of people who are eager to be noble will soon realize how disastrously difficult and unrewarding that role can be and they'll store themselves.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I do think that Staff should be more generous with giving roles to people who will likely fail. Just provide enough opportunities for others to gain roles and let the better ones persevere. A good percentage of people who are eager to be noble will soon realize how disastrously difficult and unrewarding that role can be and they'll store themselves.

There's also those people who have every intent to play a good noble, and fail. But their next noble might be great, just because they failed the first time, and learned.

[Barsook]

Can I get some clarification on what is a regular troop versus an elite troop? The byn is doubtlessly grunt troops, but the Jade Sabers were routinely referred to as a group of soldiers that are something a bit more than the usual militia division. On top of that what would a non-elite group do? Stand gate guard? Patrol around? Don't we already have NPCs for this purpose? I can guarantee if that was on offer I'd be comfortable never playing a single "grunt" troop.

The Sabers effectively did the same thing as all of the other organizations nine out of ten times and that tenth time they were doing something specific to their group to set them apart. I don't really understand why we need 5 cookie cutter organizations open at once, but I also don't really understand why the byn needs to exist when that role could be filled by indies or a player created MMH group other than perhaps latrine cleaning RP.

Maybe it would be better to cycle through each of these groups every time there's one of those inevitable party wipes/loss of interest wipes?

I don't know how this got over looked but I agree that we should cycle through these elite groups.

[SpyGuy]

I don't think the Byn's role could be filled by independents or a MMH, at least not easily.   They're the one stop shop when you need some muscle.  They work for just about everyone and fulfill needed functions like escorts, scouting and frontline grunts. 

The problem with indies taking it over is that it's a logistical mess.  The Byn can at least be expected to act like a unit when you hire them.  If I need five people from a job but Amos only has 2 other guys but Malik can supply the other 2 will there be a problem with the chain of command?   Also means I need to contact 2+ people to organize a contract.  Relying on independents also means it'd be much harder for a new combat PC to find the training they need.

Right now I count 4 combat clans open:  Byn, Wind, AoD and Garrison.   At any one time I've only seen 2 or 3 of those groups with thriving PC populations and it tends to cycle based on leadership, number of combat PCs in the right area, ic events, etc.

For what it's worth I don't see any of those clans as 'elite'.  At least not in and of themselves.  That's the biggest problem I see with something like Tor Scorpions reopening, you can call yourselves elite all you want but you need to back it up with code.  And I don't support giving coded benefits to the fancy clan alone. 

[Is Friday]

I already said this a few times on Discord, but maybe Allanak doesn't resonate with me. Maybe I'm the problem, not Allanak.

What I don't really enjoy is nobles/templars who have acquired so much "meta-currency" that they are nigh unstoppable juggernauts in politics.

That.

Working as intended.  Someone who is capable of playing a high value target with a long lifespan in Zalanthas's most deadly location should bloody well have some contacts, some pull, and some clout.  Kudos to you for doing it right!

As the resident "fall guy" player, I found playing on the other side of the table to be astonishingly strange. I have mostly played the vulnerable antagonist.

This probably wouldn't be a highlighted problem for me as a player if we had a higher WHO count. These sort of issues magnify when you can only run into so many other PCs.

I suppose we'll just disagree about the premise of the gameplay but I see where staff is coming from in the workload to reward argument.

[gotdamnmiracle]

-snip-

Every merchant houses hunting division was removed to the betterment of Indie hunters. I imagine the same argument you just made at me was also made as a reaponse to their removal. Recall that the Wind is also advertised as a mercenary group and was wholely playermade, so we know it can and does work. Additionally Rin's group was a staple in Luirs for a time and had a larger amount of players in it than the Garrison or Fist at the time. Do you seriously think the game benefits from having up to three (the max I've ever seen) unique squads of Bynners open at the same time?

Additionally, your understanding of elite is flawed. Elite isn't the things you get, but the things you're doing. The special forces in the US military aren't considered elite because they get to shoot cool guns, but because they're sneaking behind enemy lines and setting up demolitions, killing high value targets, or working with rebel organizations to reinforce a proxy war. None of these are things you could reasonably expect private Mahanahan to do because he was never trained to do more than shoot straight, sit on watch, and march properly.

By this logic, nobles would be considered elite because they can afford sharper blades and thicker shell.

Elite groups should be elite because they're doing the things that most players actually want from Allanak military, such as offensive action towards Tuluk/raiders, scoutingg and securing valuable resources, organizing tribal groups to make things difficult for enemies.

[Fernandezj]

Certain clans only seem fun if there are active leaders in that clan or very specific situations.

Noble houses (to me) seem the least fun, almost always because they rely on nobles that for the most part seem to never be around. Additionally, they have a lot of restrictions that just seem to make them too reliant on even the other PCs in the clan (let alone the noble).

The militia only seems to be fun if there's a templar or active "negative" plots (like gangs to exterminate, subterfuge, or other nefarious-ness). Like sometimes the militia seems like it could be ALOT of fun, but it seems relational to immortal plots.

The Byn seems to be the least reliant on that... it can even be fun without leaders (for a time) - but can die out similarly without leaders (at a lesser rate).

[gotdamnmiracle]

Aren't indies then the least reliant on strong leadership or imm plots?