Game Feedback Wanted

[Usiku]

Love the ideas guys, but please can we try and keep this thread to answering the original questions. Do pick up discussion around the ideas it inspires in other threads though or add smaller things to the QoL thread!

We are actively collating from this thread, so it makes it a lot easier for us if it stays on point.

Thank you!

[triste]

Kudos on all the changes in the recent release!

http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-sanvean.html

[Delirium]

Don't be so afraid of "favoritism" that you end up rewarding abusive players and punishing those who act in good faith.

[Barsook]

I will do this correctly.

What are some of the causes that have made you play less or not at all?

Real life, like for everyone else, and the low numbers when I log on. But it's more me and my life that stops me than the player count. The other main thing that stops me is a sense of lack of trust and player agency. Some of it is from, as a player, the lack of thinking of what is needed for the plot/characters' story. Not sure how much is really a true lack of from the staff side.

What are some changes you think would benefit the game and draw more people - new and returning?

Web-based tools for character gen and a client that can have graphics like Moonlit Sky.

What sort of things should do we more of?

Trust us, the players, more. Have one high-ranking role in each City-State and allow the other places ('rinth, Luir's, and RSV) to be controlled by the players (gangs, CWs, ect). The other big thing is to have more public role calls for other roles OTHER than leadership and allow players to play already established characters from the virtual population.

What sort of things should we do less of?

This was stated already by reduce the requirement for leadership reports to bi-weekly.

Other Comments

I love the transparency and the feedback calls when needed.

[najdorf]

It's mostly RL. all of my vet friends who quit cannot return now, in their late 30's, with multiple kids and troubles at work. Because the game is so addictive, that staff / feature related issues at most end up in a break of x months.

[Iiyola]

What are some of the causes that have made you play less or not at all?

I have never quit the game, but I played less due to work/RL and stagnation in game, in example: Leaders and main characters in a storyline dying/storing.



What are some changes you think would benefit the game and draw more people - new and returning?

Let Storytellers play Nobility and have them delegate their tasks to PC's. This way we can have a steady continuity of storylines. I'm a firm believer of delegating tasks to PC's to keep the player entertained.
Open the Jaxa Pah.

What sort of things should do we more of?

More random animations, in example in a tavern or out in the sands to make the environment come alive. Open up more slots (4) for Templars when/if nobility will be played/run by ST's.
Throw in unique items, in example a random piece of metal, found by a nobody grebber, or have a pirate's chest full of unique items sit in a cave.
Allow a new skill to emerge with PC's which are part of the same House for 1+ RL year. Eventually they should be able to extend their skills, if they're willing to.


What sort of things should we do less of?

Say No to attempts to make (positive) changes to the city and surrounding by, in example, Templar PC's.

[Strongheart]

Instead of looking to reply with a "No" or declining a request because it's less work, please look for solutions or reasons to say yes. Don't belittle or besmirch (intentionally or not) someone who makes something that may not be conventional, helping the player incorporate ideas into what is achievable then have patience with them if it just doesn't fit into the world. Offer alternatives even if it's going to take time.

Also, try not to assume a player's intentions with their decisions whether ICly or OOCly. If someone made mistakes in the past then accept that people can change. Or when someone is playing a certain way that you don't compare them to past experiences, all the onus is on you to make sure players aren't being judged to the point that they're denied a role due to it.

[Veselka]

I will agree that often (not always) TONE can be something that is overlooked or a missed opportunity, both between players and Staff, and that when at all possible, the proper thing to do is to talk with one another as a DM and Players might at a gaming table.

I think too often, Staff and Players jump to some pretty wild conclusions based on hearsay or their own perception of events, and don't give the other side the benefit of the doubt. I've been guilty of this in the past as well.

Mirrored in this -- Staff should be pretty aware by now that responding to passionately written long requests with a simple 'Request Received, thanks' really...Doesn't encourage Players to continue to keep Staff well in the loop. They might put in a request now and then, but the moment they get one of the 'Request Received, thanks for writing it' responses to one of their PC's requests, it is likely they don't submit character reports or requests until they are required to in a leadership position.

It's a two way street. If Staff expect Players to be forthcoming with information to make their jobs a bit easier (providing more coverage, so they don't need to be on and monitoring their clan all the time, or part of the world, all of the time), then Players similarly expect Staff to take the time to respond to their requests with more than an acknowledgment.

In kind -- It is being echoed here far and wide. "No, but" + "Yes, and" are the great rules of Improvisational Acting and Comedy. A blunt 'No' with no followthrough as to other options is what we call a 'Scene Killer'. Curtain Call. When a PC in a leadership position gets a hard No on something, with no real alternatives offered, or their PC through IC means is made out to be stupid, over-reaching, or incompetent...Yeah. It's likely they'll not have fun with the role anymore and move on to something different.

I think Staff should be more open to offering options of pursuing ideas. I don't think pursuing ideas should be exclusive to the Request Tool.

I think that PCs should be able to write/leave missives for their IC Boss, and Staff should pick those up and respond in the game, not in the Request Tool, either by NPC animation or with returned scrolls/books. It was done in the past. It makes the game feel more real, and less like a competition/game to be won via the Request Tool.

I think that PC's bosses should be NPCs that can be (among other things) assassinated, poisoned, made ill, beaten up, kidnapped, or robbed. I think that if a PC's boss is giving them a real reaming, that PC should be able to turn to the Guild and ask how much it is to take them out. They shouldn't be these untouchable Avatars for Staff. They should be a part of the game world, and again, not just represented in the Request Tool.

I think that Houses and Clans need to be more malleable. Less indestructible. I think that PCs within those organizations should be able to have more clout. I think the glass ceiling should rise up one rank, and a time limit should be imposed on the role at that point (Say, 6RL Months). Give people a chance to be the Red Robe, or the Lieutenant, or the Captain, or the Senior Agent. It's been done in the past, and the game is still here. After all -- No matter how much of a Boss you are, there's always someone above you who can say 'No, but'.

All in All -- I think Staff is doing as well as they can, particularly in 2021. I like this current team. I think the chemistry is correct. There are no bad apples that I can see.

I think if Staff gave a bit more trust to Players to be the movers and the shakers, the world would be far more dynamic, and Staff would actually have *less* on their plate, because the PCs would be interacting with each other, not with NPCs in a Request Tool.

[Bebop]

I go on breaks due to casual sexism in and out of character.  I go because of the fact that the experience doesn't feel rewarding and enjoyable as much as it is stressful. The fact that this game has zero chill for people prioritizing their real life.  Players that can be on all of the time acquire more knowledge, resources and contacts.  Timelines stretch real life months and years.  Trying to play against that is generally a losing game. 

It is also way too arbitrary and the staff are to influential over the storyline by controlling the virtual population and all of the big bads.  Getting a response can take hours or months and often times have led me to making confusing IG decisions I didn't want then get punished for.

I just took a year long break, came back a few months and I'm back on another indefinite one.  Each time I expect to not return.  I play games to enjoy my real life.  Armageddon used to be a welcome escape but more often than not I find it reduced to petty IG squabbles, a sexist experience and a race for coded power.  I'd rather build something on the Sims or shoot zombies and think about how impactful Last of Us was after I finish it than play a "game" that often feels like red tape...the experience for people like me who want to play socially.  Interacting with staff oscillates and when it swings in the wrong direction it swings hard.

As far as finding new players I think player retention or reclaiming old players is a more reasonable strat than trying to find new MUD players in 2021.

[Hestia]

I deleted a bunch of posts until I realized the entire thread was devolving into another thread about sexism.  I split the rest into its own thread. Stay on topic folks.  This thread is asking for specific information for specific reasons by the staff. 

[Halaster]

I deleted a bunch of posts until I realized the entire thread was devolving into another thread about sexism.  I split the rest into its own thread. Stay on topic folks.  This thread is asking for specific information for specific reasons by the staff.

To expand on that, a player gave a reason why they don't play.  Right or wrong, agree or not, it's what they think and this thread isn't about debating their opinions.  As Hestia has done, take it to other threads please!

And I'm very thrilled about all the feedback we've gotten so far.

[lairos]

I have been sitting and debating about responding to this. I don't respond to a lot of things, but I felt like I should provide something.

What are some of the causes that have made you play less or not at all?
1. Real life - I don't have AS much time to focus as I once did and Armageddon takes a -lot- of time.
2. Too much no - I've pressed on many characters for things and while I admit to being able to accomplish things, the percentage compared to attempts, even failed attempts is extremely low. The time it takes, even with the means, is very high. We're asked to come up with all these ideas for plots and goals and then we're often unable to execute and can feel defeating.
3. Interaction It has become increasingly difficult to find interaction depending on your character.
4. Game changes - There are some changes that just are harder to accept than others.


What are some changes you think would benefit the game and draw more people - new and returning?
1. More open in game options even with limit restrictions (Bring back clans, aspects of clans, fighting styles, magick options/reaches)
2. Providing smaller clans easier means to communicate and set up playtimes.
3. Lessen the Karma regen. We see longer life cycles and less quick return when we restrict what players have proven they have the ability to play. It's my opinion that the more people are restricted the less they are willing to attempt and the more they want to play what is restricted.
4. Change back to more staff ran rpt's that push stories across the known. (Push more of "The Queen", Bring back the dragon..Ect. More more open world plots)

What sort of things should do we more of?
1. More staff ran RPTs. Keep the story going.
2. Provide more feedback or suggestions as it makes sense and be more verbose if possible on requests.
3. More simple animations.

What sort of things should we do less of?
1. Less saying no and giving more options and even allowing players to fail.
2. Less restrictive on the requirements to accomplish/fail at things.

[Strongheart]

I have been sitting and debating about responding to this. I don't respond to a lot of things, but I felt like I should provide something.

What are some of the causes that have made you play less or not at all?
1. Real life - I don't have AS much time to focus as I once did and Armageddon takes a -lot- of time.
2. Too much no - I've pressed on many characters for things and while I admit to being able to accomplish things, the percentage compared to attempts, even failed attempts is extremely low. The time it takes, even with the means, is very high. We're asked to come up with all these ideas for plots and goals and then we're often unable to execute and can feel defeating.
3. Interaction It has become increasingly difficult to find interaction depending on your character.
4. Game changes - There are some changes that just are harder to accept than others.


What are some changes you think would benefit the game and draw more people - new and returning?
1. More open in game options even with limit restrictions (Bring back clans, aspects of clans, fighting styles, magick options/reaches)
2. Providing smaller clans easier means to communicate and set up playtimes.
3. Lessen the Karma regen. We see longer life cycles and less quick return when we restrict what players have proven they have the ability to play. It's my opinion that the more people are restricted the less they are willing to attempt and the more they want to play what is restricted.
4. Change back to more staff ran rpt's that push stories across the known. (Push more of "The Queen", Bring back the dragon..Ect. More more open world plots)

What sort of things should do we more of?
1. More staff ran RPTs. Keep the story going.
2. Provide more feedback or suggestions as it makes sense and be more verbose if possible on requests.
3. More simple animations.

What sort of things should we do less of?
1. Less saying no and giving more options and even allowing players to fail.
2. Less restrictive on the requirements to accomplish/fail at things.

+1 thorough as heck! Thank you for sharing, Iairos.

[Barsook]

Spot on!

[LauraMars]

What are some of the causes that have made you play less or not at all?

Mainly, not knowing if staff members interacting with me have my best interests and enjoyment at heart. I played a few sponsored roles in my years, but I don't think I ever would again if I came back, because my experiences with running sponsored roles were pretty negative where interacting with staff was concerned and I look back on those periods with fear and mistrust. (The players were largely a joy, though, which is why I'm continuously tempted by the idea!)  I realize that most of what I experienced was systemic rather than actively malicious but that doesn't negate the feelings I felt unfortunately.

Also, full disclosure, when I was on staff I did not enjoy the culture where staff treat the playerbase disrespectfully. I found that knowing what was going on and how the people in charge were behaving/feeling about the players really affected my play as a non staff member. I found (and continue to find) it very hard to play the game as a player when worried that whatever I am doing (foraging salt without emoting, using words wrong, etc) is generating a negative response from invisible people with total power over my game experience. I also found it hard to staff the game when that habit of staff members trash talking players in the peanut gallery creates such a depressing atmosphere. After several years away from it I've come to realize it damaged my morale pretty badly. I know it's the culture to do that here and yeah, players can do annoying things sometimes, but in my experience there's other ways to run a volunteer team that are more positive and mature for me. Not sure if anything about this has changed in the 5 years since I've seriously played. I hope so. I think Armageddon is great I just really don't like that part of it at all. Sorry. =/

What are some changes you think would benefit the game and draw more people - new and returning?

- I remember the red tape being very sticky both staff side and player side so more autonomy for both groups would probably go over well with everyone if you can find a way to avoid it resulting in every third character being made into a sorcerer or given mind powers no offense 2008.
- Would love to see some kind of system for indicating what kind of roleplay you're actually interested in engaging with that you can set and forget but that other people can peruse to know if you'd be a good fit in their story and vice versa.
- Putting a 5 minute timer in for post-death roleplay so people can say their last words.
- Crafting overhaul lol (yes like it's that easy.)
- More areas to explore and conquer and claim with awful monsters in them that drop cool loot but need armies to properly explore to drive group roleplay and clan teamups.
- Nerf psionicists more and more and more.
- Automatically make character bios public after a certain period of time post character death/retirement so people can go ogle the backstories of their friends and enemies. It'd have to be a pretty lengthy turnover to maintain Armageddon's commitment to IC/OOC separation, but making your playerbase write stuff for you is passive content creation which is *chefskiss* for community engagement.
- Actual consequences for magick use to make it something people are legitimately afraid of.
- Reform staff policies to a) flatten administrative structure and create more transparency among team members and b) create a player first culture with a zero tolerance policy on trash talking and reactive/emotionally driven/biased staffing.

What sort of things should do we more of?

More focus on the union of code and roleplay!!! All coded actions should encourage roleplay and all avenues of roleplay should be rewarded or accessible via code. Armageddon is one of the very best games on the internet at this one particular very niche thing, and from what I hear it's only getting better at it, so keep doing that.

Also, more threads like this one, and more open and honest discourse between staff and players. Love to see this thread, love to see the Discord where chat between staff and players happens all the time, love to see that divide getting a bit blurrier than it used to be and (apparently) fewer consequences for having a negative-but-civilly-expressed opinion. That's positive to me!

What sort of things should we do less of?

Please see the answer to my first question.

[Strongheart]

Wonderfully stated! And I like hearing takes from the inside as I believe that disrespect still occurs but it's not something that can be directly verified without hurting people. Clique mentally can develop in plenty of groups but that doesn't mean staff's volunteers and players for that matter can't grow out of it. As you said, communication and transparency as well as the blurring of that can produce healthier results for a community. I appreciate that staff is starting to reach out more, a big thank you to our latest admin Shabago for that as well as a few other staffers who've shown the same willingness.

[Delirium]

I feel that discord has been a great step forward toward better player/staff mingling and communication.

It still gets contentious and there are areas of improvement on both player and staff sides as far as being patient and understanding with each other, trying to assume the best despite flawed text medium, but it has also been extremely helpful as it provides more informal, real-time communication that lets us chit-chat and bond as a community over shared interests.

I'll openly admit to needing to improve my own tone at times; sometimes what I think is conciseness or tongue-in-cheek joking comes across as brusque or rude-- and sometimes I really am being rude, because my frustration got the better of me, and I let that happen rather than step back and reflect on a more constructive way to respond. We've all been there.

Staff in particular I would encourage to carefully moderate their words and tone to make sure they are being inclusive and positive, both on discord and in private staff channels. Attitude and tone can make a vast difference in morale.

I think something staff and players all could benefit from, to somewhat echo LauraMars's post somewhat, is to refrain from falling into the trap of assuming the worst or mocking other players and staff, especially if we do not have all sides of a story. It is a far healthier approach to remember that we are all human beings (and often, nerds who are passionate about this community and this game) and try to respect each other as such. On the flip side, that consideration and respect should not go so far as to excuse those who argue disagreements in bad faith, misrepresent situations to make themselves look better or win arguments, or display other toxic behaviors which ultimately damage the community and its morale.

Those players or staff should not be given a pass for bad behavior simply because they otherwise contribute creatively to the community; if they are unwilling or seem unable to course-correct their behavior after three strikes, they should be banned. Nor am I in the camp of "bring back banned people" unless they show concrete proof of their changed behavior. I would rather have a smaller base of players who are responsible and thoughtful to their fellow players on an out-of-game level, regardless of in-game conflicts. Some of my favorite conflicts, in fact, have been with people I adore IRL; this is probably because I trust them to approach a situation with the intent of telling a story, not purely to win.

I suspect that developing a community which remains positive and welcoming on an out of character level, despite the dramatics which ensue in-game, will ultimately attract those of similar mindset and encourage a younger generation of players to give this game a real chance. Society has moved on in ~25 years; gaming culture is shifting, and if we want this game to survive, we need to be able to appeal to those who have grown with the times. This means creating a welcoming and accepting environment for LGBTQ+ players, and addressing the thorny issues of sexism as evenly as possible. Those who feel marginalized in real life for real life issues will not wish to feel marginalized for the same issues in a game.

Will it ever be perfect? No. Can we keep working on improving? Yes. The first step toward that, I believe, is positivity.

Fostering ill-will and mistrust between players and staff only damages the community. When disagreements rise, handling them with as much maturity and patience as you can muster is key, and if you feel incapable of that, I suggest stepping away from the situation and taking a breather, or asking someone else to handle it on your behalf, if possible.

This goes for me, for players, for staff, for everyone. In the end we are all people behind these text screens.

[Delirium]

Separate thoughts, so a separate post: look very seriously at what fosters interaction and playability. Forcing PCs to rely on each other is rarely the key, as that leads to frustration when you can't find someone who shares your playtimes or the playerbase in an area is low, or that ONE character who has what you need, isn't appropriate to interact with.

Nor do I feel that siloing players in specific areas of the game, with no way to interact save hostility, is a good idea. The way Tuluk is currently silo'd and outright encouraged to try and murder the rest of the playerbase is detrimental to the rest of the gameworld, especially as it currently possesses the lion's share of active PCs. Players and staff should really take a careful look at whether they're respecting the virtual population and whether they're encouraging a game that feels alive; currently it feels like there are two entirely separate Armageddons (maybe three, but having Luir's apartments removed really hurt that area).

Give players avenues to interact without having to resort immediately to violence, even if that interaction is low-level or long-term conflict. Yes, a balance between short-lived flavor characters, long-lived plot carriers, "kill first" characters, and "let 'em live" characters is needed, but too many of one or the other ends up making the game feel either frustrating (plots get dropped) or stagnant (plots get squashed). In the end, what I feel is most important is to stop and think: is this for the story, or is this to win? Does this consider the gameworld as a living entity, or am I justifying this so I can try and ensure my character's survival?

I also feel that subguild magickers have done more harm than good to the game. It is simply too powerful.

What may be a better solution is to have full guild mages who have specific subguilds to choose from, similar to sorcerer and psionicist subguilds; in fact, sorcs, mages, and psis could all draw from the same pool of subguilds. Those specific subguilds would need drastic re-working so that they are viable to play, blend in better with full guilds, but are not as powerful as full guilds-- right now, every sorc/psi subguild is severely lacking at best. I think the end result would be worth it, as it would bring the game more back in line to having mages be mages, not buffed power ranger raiders.

Subguild magickers also creates an issue where clans who do hire mages end up needing to hire far more of them than they would have in the past, to accomplish the same goals, so it creates an almost artificial oversaturation of mages; where once, 2-3 mages in a clan might have been enough, now they often need a larger group for the right synergy.

Further, if a player seeks coded power as an antagonist role, they have zero motivation to choose a fully mundane character-- and those who those antagonists fight, on the other hand, are normally mundane, due to the restrictions of the clans or city which they belong to, and thus at a severe coded disadvantage. Those mundane characters are also restricted or discouraged from interacting with or seeking assistance from other mages to help them fight back.

This creates an artificial power disparity. Tuluk, Allanak, and even Luir's should be able to combat the threat posed by most magickal pcs who are bold enough to take them head-on with the forces they have, but they a) may not currently have characters who are established enough, or have the correct playtimes, to counter the PC threat, and b) NPCs do not respond intelligently enough to counter these threats as PCs would, and their scripted behaviors are often abused.

So the antagonists end up being able to lock down entire areas of the game-- which fosters boredom and frustration.

[RiftTalon]

Hey—I am a prior player that has been out of the game for a couple of years: I only very very rarely check up on things because I am the creator of the Moonlit Sky client. A lot of what I'd want to talk about the roleplay side has already been debated to death, so as a programmer and eleven-year hobbyist game developer I'd rather talk about what I know best:

Mechanically, what makes Armageddon suck?

Some mechanics are debated more than others, and a lot are up to opinion more than anything else. That said, I'm going to focus mainly on the obvious "bad" ones.

The first of which being that permadeath and instadeath don't mix. This is an outdated idea that I always hate seeing. The reason for permadeath (despite popular belief) is absolutely not to punish the players. Why would you ever want to punish someone during an experience that's meant to be fun? The reason permadeath can be so exciting and adrenaline-boosting is the same reason people love horror movies or cliff jumping: the thrill. There is no thrill in a character's death. The thrill comes from the struggle, the fear of death, your hit points being low and wondering if you're going to make it out of a tense situation with your character still intact, or die trying.

Armageddon makes it too easy to quit, because there are too many spider rooms, pits, and instadeath scripts. You don't get that adrenaline, you get "you're dead, sorry." And you're just left there wondering why you even play a game that just deletes your character every once in a while. Of course you have things like those death saving throws, but most of the time once you're left unconscious, it's over and there's no way to escape. I propose that one-shots to health just become codedly impossible, apart from falling. And for stun, make it so that only bludgeoning weapons can drain your stun in one hit: and that if you're hit while unconscious you actually have a small chance to wake back up with a token number of stun points. This would also serve to remove the massive meta behind bludgeoning weapons: where between their hit point and stun damages, they are undeniably the most powerful weapons in the game.

Then, take a look at your attributes. Strength is WILD. The carry weight increase is exponential, meaning that a single point of strength at a low level may give you some extra carry weight, whereas at a high level, that becomes some more. For a human especially, this is just crazy. And it led to me exploiting the additional strength you can get from character generation by doing things to get a high strength. The power difference was enough to let me steamroll anything right out the gate. Not to mention that since the strength bonus to attacks is applied before critical hit multipliers, every single neck hit on an enemy does the highest tier of damage, where other people might even still be nicking.

So (maybe) lower the exponent on carry weight, and (definitely) apply the strength bonus after the critical multiplier. I'm pretty sure that there's no way the insane strength critical hits were intentional, and I'd go so far as to call it a bug that nobody ever bothered to fix.

Next up: increasing combat skills is convoluted and ruins the fun. It's almost like it was designed so that only people with insider knowledge of the system could ever get above Journeyman combat skills. It leads to all of that twinkish behavior that skilling players go through just to score those sweet sweet misses. This is a problem that can be so easily solved: just make the most efficient way to skill also the most realistic. No more sitting with an inventory full of rocks in the dark, drunk, fighting stilt lizards. Instead, just cap your hit chance at 95% like every other game. Just so you don't have to try so hard to break the game if you ever want to be good at fighting.

Now I know Armageddon isn't about grinding your skills, and that behavior is looked down upon, but the game is built on a system that encourages it. And it makes realistic sense too: people train their skills, and it is a major part of life. If you want to lower the amount of time people spend grinding, then remember this is a coded game, and you should be putting mechanical rules on things, not asking "please don't do this." That's like including a rule in Dungeons and Dragons that's like: "if you hold up your pinky, you're invincible. Please don't use this, thanks."

And on we go! The request tool is intimidating. As a new player, interaction with admins is scary. I avoided the request tool at all costs for years. Going to a website out of the game, logging in, and making a formal request for something just to wait weeks for a response from someone who may tell you no? Sounds like nothing but trouble. I think there should be easier ways to get staff approval on things, and they should come from within the game. I'm unsure exactly what you could do, but I'm sure a few things could be moved over.

Those are the big ticket items. Let's get our noses out of these mechanics, and into the game's audience:

Everyone's getting older, and the game is getting outdated.

I'm young myself at twenty years old, and Armageddon wasn't too tough to figure out and enjoy because of a background in technology and previous experience with D&D. I'd invited genuinely over a dozen friends to play during my time in Armageddon, and all of them tried it. Nice big boost in server population for a couple days, but the reality was: nobody wanted to invest so much time into figuring out how to play.

Some MUDs have started getting graphical, and focusing on user-friendliness. This is absolutely the right way to go. After nobody I knew wanted to play Armageddon, I went ahead and put months into developing the Moonlit Sky client, gave it a minimap, an inventory screen, vital bars, and helpful hints and commands. After showing the same people my client, I was able to get five of them reinterested, and they played anywhere from a few months to multiple years afterwards.

The map is definitely a key point here, because stumbling around like crazy and getting hopelessly lost all the time was an experience ruiner. There are rules against map sharing, but it's mostly just a navigational gate that nobody experienced has to deal with because they can just quietly pass maps around. A map is not game-breaking: please please please just let people see where they're walking. I'm surprised that it has ever even been up for debate. I promise the game will be better for it.

I'll go ahead and end my rant here, because it's much longer than I wanted it to be, but: streamline the experience, fix the outdated mechanics.

That's all. Thank you for reading.


Halaster's edit's: I edited a couple of spots that had a bit more info about code that we'd like to see public.  I noted it with bold, blue text.

[X-D]

I would like to add the instant death as part of my feedback as well.

I have over the years been quite the advocate to any system of death staging.

For Instance, I am a proponent of the, You are mortally wounded, nothing but magick or staff can stop that death. But you can talk, emote, maybe way (but that should bring death faster). And with mercy on, You should never get to that point.

As it is, almost everything about the game leads more towards instant death. It is easier to kill somebody accidentely then to keep them alive on purpose.

I have never understood why it is that over the years staff has seemed to be totally against the ideas of allowing stages to the death past what we have. I have seen almost no player arguement against it because you always have "quit die".

In fact, Let me add, I do not think that neg HP should knock you out...ONLY neg stun should.

The death really should be, as much as possible, a high point in a Role Play enforced permadeath mud.

[The Gruffalo]

To X-D's pont:

Man, I would really like to not accidentally kill people even when I have mercy on. I also want NPC soldiers to have mercy on, and maybe even switch to bludgeoning weapons. Sometimes violence has got to break out, but when it does, why not make it easier to give the scene flavor and keep the story going? The way NPCs are set up now, once someone triggers the crime code, there is literally no recourse to stop the instant death that's coming. What if I wanted to interrogate them? Take their stuff? Beat them down and chuck them in jail with the roaches? Menace them with an "I won't be so merciful next time?"

I had a situation once where I intended to beat a PC down to near death, give them a scene, and then flip a coin based on how they reacted as to whether they lived or died-- but instead they got curb-stomped because they fled into an adjoining room and NPC soldiers ran in and wrecked the entire scene. It gave me zero chance to add any flavor to the scene. All they got was NPC murder spam. That's the code actively hindering roleplay rather than supporting it.

NPC soldiers not having mercy on removes all the other options that would be way more fun. Even if you do have to kill them, it's a far better gameplay scenario when you're able to give that player the courtesy of some time to think, feel, and emote, while you in turn give their death more meaning and flavor in exchange. If you've got to fuck someone over, at least give us the option to make it a good time for them, yeah? The way things are now, it's close to impossible unless you hold all the cards, and in turn, essentially hold that player hostage-- which leads to its own complications. Nobody likes being stuck in a hopeless scene.

Let people beat each other and leave them for dead. Let us rob, maim, fuck over, and yes, sometimes murder, but adjust the code to give us players the option to do it in a way that helps make the encounter feel less like an abrupt 'fuck you' and more like a collaborative storytelling experience. Yeah, some players will insist on escalating, but I want the option.

In addition, unless the mob is a hostile carnivore, why not put mercy on them, too?

[Iiyola]

To follow up on my feedback:

With having less time to play due to being a "responsible adult", I really don't have time for The Grind.

It would be so nice to get certain skills up, particularly fighting skills, without having to spend hours and hours and hours of sparring etc.

Could this pretty please be reviewed?

[Dar]

I have to agree, there is no need to be so merciless towards death by NPC. There is genuinely no benefit to it. Let the NPC KO the person and begin a long process of devouring them, or KO them and bring them to jail, or KO them and loot their body, or causing them to bleed and be injured which causes a long lasting penalty to stats/hp. But insta kills from an NPC never improves anyone's story.

[Khorm]

i took a long ass break. came back here and there for the last couple years. i have a very hard time imagining coming back again.

for me the issue boils down to time and energy investment. the game feels like it requires an incredible time commitment to get things moving and then... things just plateau. for a long time. the pacing is excruciatingly slow and requires a consistent engagement.

i can generally expect to be stressed and anxious about the expectations of staff and other players while putting in long hours just for the sake of availability.

i've had a ton of fun playing armageddon and i've played with a lot of great people, especially recently. the amount of time i spend waiting for someone or for shit to happen or regenerating stamina in the red desert vastly outweighs the time having fun and encroaches on mental space that can be dedicated to more consistently rewarding things.

i don't know that this can be fixed by staff. the stuff that halaster has been doing is pretty exciting, though i think a lot of the stagnation i experience is a byproduct of characters that live forever on some multi-year arc. my attention span can't fuck with that.

[williamson]

What are some of the causes that have made you play less or not at all?

Same as everyone else. I spend more hours of leisure doing other hobbies, work, etc.

What are some changes you think would benefit the game and draw more people - new and returning?

As mentioned earlier, I think a publicity email on perhaps a semi-annual cycle might help drawback old players. It could explain the changes such as new classes, subguilds, spell criticals success/failures, additions of new areas, and major world plots (such as Tuluk reopening). This information might attract old players back to the game.

Also mentioned earlier, the idea of mini role calls that leaders could request to expand their clans. Examples: A Kadian family member might be in need of someone that makes jewelry or a noble might request a bastard.

I'm also in agreement with reducing the chance of instant death by death rooms, NPCs, falls, or failed mercy. This is especially important around Allanak where there are likely more new players and inexperienced characters.

Add a consent rule for sexual harassment like the ones for sexually explicit/torture role play.

Purchase advertisement for the game.

It seems a lot of new players have trouble with the mapping. I think the vast majority of veteran players know much of the world. I don't think much would be lost by providing starting maps for new players for public areas such as Luir's, Allanak, and Tuluk. Perhaps even maps for the common trade routes between Tuluk and Allanak?

With fewer players playing for fewer hours, it becomes more difficult for players to find each other in-game. If we brought back mud mail, players could communicate with each other to arrange times to play together.

With fewer players playing for fewer hours, it becomes more of a grind to increase character skills which takes away from plots. Idea: Much like a custom craft, players could request a skill bump of one level which resets at a duration chosen by the staff for balance and fairness. Requesting such bumps might require meeting specific in-game requirements such as being in a combat clan for combat skill bumps, serving in a merchant house for crafting skill bumps, or living with elves for an allundean skill bump.

What sort of things should do we more of?

Giving players limited power to control portions of the game world with staff oversight. I think a good example was the Luir's Council. Perhaps something similar could be done in Tuluk and Allanak? A council of PC nobles/templars who vote and politically maneuver to influence votes. There could be actual meetings but characters could also vote by proxy such as a letter. They might do things such as change taxes, post bounties on criminals, exile groups, etc... Exactly what this group would do and where it's located wouldn't matter as much as there would be power and influence for PCs and Houses to try to obtain and complete.

Continue to update the help files. There seem to be important ones missing such as sexism, torture, and sexual conduct. Trying to think as a new player, I tried to find a help file that explained that sexism didn't exist in-game. I couldn't find one. Nothing under sexism, conduct, or rules. I'm sure it exists somewhere, but I couldn't find it. If I was new, where should it be? There is a help file for consent. However, I don't think I'd ever type that as a new player. I think I'd use torture or sex and look for rules pertaining to those topics. Making the rules easier to find might reduce the number of people breaking them.

Continue with staff-driven major world plots.

What sort of things should we do less of?

I'm a big fan of lifting the glass ceiling when characters prove they can rise above the rest. I suggesting making glass ceilings softer with more grey areas.

There are too many taverns in Allanak. Offhand, there may be as many as seven. Additionally, they are segregated by class and race. The result is too many people never seeing or being able to interact with each other. There was more interaction when everyone gathered in Flint's or the Trader's Inn of old.