Continuation of Player-Staff meeting - AMA

[Shabago]

As offered in discord general during the staff meeting, this thread is for questions/answers that otherwise didn't have a chance to be addressed today. Please do not post against or for other posters, derail or debate among each other, to keep this thread readable and productive. If commentary on questions or answers is needed, please create a sidebar discussion for such and treat each other with respect.

Post away. I will either try to have some answers out tonight, or tackle a chunk tomorrow. Pending how popular the thread is, I'll continue to answer some, daily, as able.

[X-D]

I found it interesting somebody (staff) Brought up the bit of code that would allow some slight skill level carry over from one PC to the next. I remember when that went in, but I honestly do not remember if I ever experienced it.

Always wondered why it was removed.

I think it is a viable idea again. Being considered staff side?

[Veselka]

Sponsored roles are a huge time commitment and require a player that is OOCly pretty organized and responsible, even if their PC is a complete mess.

It's hard to tell if I'm doing a good job with the sponsored role, or if I'm making people hate an area of the game by doing such a terrible job. Course corrections sometimes come through negative IG interactions that seem jarring or out of the blue, or via sends from Staff IG that can be just as jarring. Negative reinforcement seems more common than positive reinforcement, and TBH, I don't think Leaders play the game to be chided by Staff, we play it to collaborate with Staff and make sure documentation is reinforced not shirked, and have a believable PC making plots and interacting with the game world at large.

It can often feel like I am playing two games: the actual game, and the request tool. I hate needing to make verbose requests and taking an hour of my life outside of the game to type it into a TPS report that may only be responded to well after any of it is in fact relevant.  It can seem that I need to write Great Reports in order to get things done IG, and that seems back-asswards sometimes.

Are there ways Staff can pursue positive reinforcement over negative reinforcement with sponsored leadership positions?

How can Staff improve the reliance on the request tool for both leadership PCs and Staff? It seems to admittedly take up quite a bit of Staff Time, and it isn't a negligible amount of player time that it takes up as well.

[Shabago]

I found it interesting somebody (staff) Brought up the bit of code that would allow some slight skill level carry over from one PC to the next. I remember when that went in, but I honestly do not remember if I ever experienced it.

Always wondered why it was removed.

I think it is a viable idea again. Being considered staff side?

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with any such code having been in place previously, but yes - there is an active discussion taking place staff side on how a system could be implemented to reduce the level of "Grind" new PCs have to face. This, if implemented in some capacity, could take on various appearances. A new system/code, karma system, or other assorted metrics have been touched on in the early portions of said discussion.

[Shabago]

Sponsored roles are a huge time commitment and require a player that is OOCly pretty organized and responsible, even if their PC is a complete mess.

It's hard to tell if I'm doing a good job with the sponsored role, or if I'm making people hate an area of the game by doing such a terrible job. Course corrections sometimes come through negative IG interactions that seem jarring or out of the blue, or via sends from Staff IG that can be just as jarring. Negative reinforcement seems more common than positive reinforcement, and TBH, I don't think Leaders play the game to be chided by Staff, we play it to collaborate with Staff and make sure documentation is reinforced not shirked, and have a believable PC making plots and interacting with the game world at large.

It can often feel like I am playing two games: the actual game, and the request tool. I hate needing to make verbose requests and taking an hour of my life outside of the game to type it into a TPS report that may only be responded to well after any of it is in fact relevant.  It can seem that I need to write Great Reports in order to get things done IG, and that seems back-asswards sometimes.

Are there ways Staff can pursue positive reinforcement over negative reinforcement with sponsored leadership positions?

How can Staff improve the reliance on the request tool for both leadership PCs and Staff? It seems to admittedly take up quite a bit of Staff Time, and it isn't a negligible amount of player time that it takes up as well.

This is a really great question as well as feedback. It's also a tough one to give an actionable answer to.

It does take up a good portion of player and staff time. Agreed. Further breaking that down into root cause:

Staff log-in times: A wish up for immediate action/answer may not be possible due to said clan-staff member not being on port and the nature of the wish.

- Animation of specific npcs = continuity of personality, previous animation knowledge, weeks or months of plan/plot understanding by request tool updates and so on, make it jarring and or rather awkward for both sides of the equation.
- Request of information that story-tellers can not access, such as 'What happened to this npc in this room'?. Only certain members of the team can find out via logs.
- Lack of off the top of the head knowledge. "What does this symbol mean?" -> It may be missing a label/info on the item. The staff member in question wasn't around in the 90s to know its origin and needs to comb the various staff pages, ask another staff member, etc.
- Other PC involvement, meta considerations, cross-clan issues, already engaged in another task/staff workload/animation - all equals inability to answer that very moment.

While the above isn't an answer, it felt prudent to point those various issues out as to why the request tool is used and/or needed.

Are there wish-issues that could, potentially, be addressed on the fly by any staff member? No doubt. Do requests sometimes linger too long in the tool? Yes.

So, the only concrete actionable step I could say at present for your question, is more expedient request resolutions. That only answers a sliver of your concerns, however. As ironic as this will be, I'd encourage you to submit a request if you have specific examples of IG issues you feel could or should be addressed by wish, rather than request tool, that don't fall into the above points. I'd be willing to discuss them with the team as a whole.
-

As to positive over negative reinforcement - I'm 100% certain there is. The issue and/or root cause, once again, has to do with what the theme and game world at large is all about.

- Do your fellow <insert clannies, tribe-mates here> care that you just did X thing wonderfully? No. Not usually. They probably hate it, because you just made them look bad and the bosses or elders probably like you more than them, so don't expect praise.
- Would those same clannies/tribe-mates at large pounce on you for making an error? Of course they would. Not they'll look better than you.

The stick is always there, in place of the carrot, /ICly/ and you (general you) know that. However, I still said and stand by the 100% agreement that improvements can be made. Namely, through animation of said people who would view you favourably for your positive actions and/or echos to reflect your efforts. A small back-pat or kind word reinforcement can carry a long way compared to a constant stick.

[Mellifera]

I wanted to follow up on the question I asked during the meeting regarding the removal of full guild psions.

I appreciate the very solid answer from Shalooonsh, and I'd like to say that it's an absolutely reasonable, and probably ideal strategy to temporarily restrict psions to the new sub-guilds for the sake of testing them, seeing how they settle, and focusing on one thing at a time. Obviously this was only suggested a little in general afterwards, and I'm still operating under the assumption this is planned as a permanent change (and only hoping otherwise).

The first point was about their power. A Certain Clan was mentioned as evidence that full psions were far too powerful, with the ability to end plots too easily and frequently, and while I totally agree that was the case for That Clan, I've not personally observed anything similar for true psions. That Clan was free of the social cost that came with being a psion, and they were already placed in a position of great power, authority, and reverence, tasked with the precise duty of ending antagonistic ambitions. True psions, on the other hand, always had to contend with the fact that almost all players, and every institution or government, would kill them on sight immediately if they were ever discovered or suspected, so ending plots in such a way was rarely something they could (or would often even want) to do.

The removal of all full sorcerers and elementalists was also mentioned in Shalooonsh's answer as being done for similar reasons to the removal of full psions, that being they were built in a different era of the game, and handicapped by their subguilds. Personally, and this is also a sentiment I have heard from others, powerful non mundanes being handicapped by being able to access far fewer mundane talents actually balanced them well, and solved/avoided, at the time, another big issue which is commonly talked about, which is that magick characters are now at a pure advantage in every way but social, whereas during the era of full guild magick and psionics, mundanes were put at an advantage through their unique mastery of mundane skills, which elementalists, sorcerers, and psions simply could not achieve, and so those psions and magickers subsequently had to rely on mundanes for certain plots. Mundanes filled a role that non-mundanes could not, and non-mundanes filled a role mundanes could not, and everyone got involved with each other, but now non-mundanes can fill any role and have a massive additional coded advantage, and mundanes are left with very little. I've heard magickers called mundane+, and I worry that will only be made worse.

I think that past era of truly awe inspiring sorcerers, mages, and psions isn't something that should die out. We still talk about so many of those amazing characters and the things they did, and as Shalooonsh and Usiku also said during the meeting, the aim of Armageddon is ultimately fun through creativity and shared stories. The massive power that full psions could eventually employ was, in my opinion, narrative power, and I don't think that should be taken away from players. Certain sub guild psions will probably be just as tough in a fight, able to uncover just as much, and PK just as many PC's, but they wont as easily be able to shake Zalanthas and make those creative, shared stories that psions with access to all psionics could, those that are remembered for years to come.

So, after that admittedly monstrous preamble (I apologise, and I can always make an entirely new thread on this topic if that's preferable) I have these follow up questions:

- Was this a decision made purely for balance reasons? If so, could others options for balance be addressed?

- Was the decision made to limit the amount of power players can access?

- Are there plans to address the 'mundane+' issue?

- Once sub guild psions are fully tested, do you think there would be any remaining reasons for sub-guild psions and full-guild psions not to coexist (taking into account that both have players who want to use them)?

Thanks for the opportunity to voice these kinds of questions. Communication between players and staff is super important for the continued health of Arm, and I'm very happy staff are looking to hear what players have to say and ask for its future. Again, if this is too discussion oriented, I'll happily move it to a new thread.

[triste]

Someone offered to ask this question but didn't:

Some of us love this game but are busy AF. Have staff considered changing policies or mechanics to make this game viable for very busy people?

Example: most weeks I can only play two hours at most. Improved mechanisms around asynchronous communication or changes to rules around OOC communication may make this game viable for people with playtimes so low.

[Halaster]

Someone offered to ask this question but didn't:

Some of us love this game but are busy AF. Have staff considered changing policies or mechanics to make this game viable for very busy people?

Example: most weeks I can only play two hours at most. Improved mechanisms around asynchronous communication or changes to rules around OOC communication may make this game viable for people with playtimes so low.

Got specific examples?

[triste]

Someone offered to ask this question but didn't:

Some of us love this game but are busy AF. Have staff considered changing policies or mechanics to make this game viable for very busy people?

Example: most weeks I can only play two hours at most. Improved mechanisms around asynchronous communication or changes to rules around OOC communication may make this game viable for people with playtimes so low.

Got specific examples?

What I am getting at is many players now have reduced playtimes, but the game can be hard to enjoy if you have reduced playtimes:
- Low playtimes bars you for getting most, if not all roles.
- When you have low playtimes, you are often assumed dead periodically because people have no offline means of getting in touch (besides clan forums).
- When you have low play times, you can feel almost guilty for getting involved in plots, and can lead to a reluctance to play at all.

As a result, many low playtime players effectively give up. This came up in nearly half of the posts in the thread asking old players who no longer play for feedback. It is obviously a blocker for many players who want to play, and keeps them from actually being able to play.

The low playtime problem is also extremely similar to the off peak playtime problem. SO, my question is has staff thought of potential solutions to the low playtime / off peak playtime problem?

Possible solutions I have proposed but please propose your own:
- offline way messages or other async in game messages.
- Better OOC comms than a clunky GDB and a chaotic Discord.
- open more roles suitable to low playtimes.

Looking forward to feedback! Again another player directly said they wanted an answer to my question as well, and this topic was heavily represented in the veteran feedback thread. Inquiring and busy minds want to know.

[Narf]

Got specific examples?

I was poking around with the idea of a semi-anonymous spreadsheet where people could post what clan they're in, and what their most typical playtimes are. It wouldn't have characters associated with it. You just find  your clan on the spreadsheet and put an anonymous checkmark next to some times you usually play, which would not be distinct from all the other checkmarks of all the other clan folk playing at the same time. Leaders might have their own special checkmark if we wanted to designate them special (maybe in blue?)


Still poking around with the idea before I actually propose it since there's a few ways it could break as stated (potential for vandalizing the spreadsheet, forgetting that you already put a checkmark and doubling up, forgetting to remove checkmarks after you stop playing that character or at those times).

[Shabago]

So, after that admittedly monstrous preamble (I apologise, and I can always make an entirely new thread on this topic if that's preferable) I have these follow up questions:

- Was this a decision made purely for balance reasons? If so, could others options for balance be addressed?

- Was the decision made to limit the amount of power players can access?

- Are there plans to address the 'mundane+' issue?

- Once sub guild psions are fully tested, do you think there would be any remaining reasons for sub-guild psions and full-guild psions not to coexist (taking into account that both have players who want to use them)?

For point 1:
These have been a long intended change, for balance and play-ability. It's to further bring them into line with the other subguilds that have been put in place for awhile now. What other options of balance are you referring to?

Point 2:
This wasn't the sole or core reasoning, to my knowledge, no. It largely had to do with play-ability and making these roles less painful for people to play. Full guilds were highly easy to sniff, very fragile in certain ways and lacked any extra avenues of RP that the new ones provide. + *some* manner of self sufficiency given the oft-times isolation by nature of said roles.

Point 3:
If you're referring to making mundanes more attractive to play in some capacity? Yes. There are on-going discussions about this staff side.

Point 4:
We've no active discussions to allow both full and sub at this time.

[Patuk]

Point 2:
This wasn't the sole or core reasoning, to my knowledge, no. It largely had to do with play-ability and making these roles less painful for people to play. Full guilds were highly easy to sniff, very fragile in certain ways and lacked any extra avenues of RP that the new ones provide. + *some* manner of self sufficiency given the oft-times isolation by nature of said roles.

Well shit, man. I suppose that definitely worked.

[Mellifera]

So, after that admittedly monstrous preamble (I apologise, and I can always make an entirely new thread on this topic if that's preferable) I have these follow up questions:

- Was this a decision made purely for balance reasons? If so, could others options for balance be addressed?

- Was the decision made to limit the amount of power players can access?

- Are there plans to address the 'mundane+' issue?

- Once sub guild psions are fully tested, do you think there would be any remaining reasons for sub-guild psions and full-guild psions not to coexist (taking into account that both have players who want to use them)?

For point 1:
These have been a long intended change, for balance and play-ability. It's to further bring them into line with the other subguilds that have been put in place for awhile now. What other options of balance are you referring to?

Point 2:
This wasn't the sole or core reasoning, to my knowledge, no. It largely had to do with play-ability and making these roles less painful for people to play. Full guilds were highly easy to sniff, very fragile in certain ways and lacked any extra avenues of RP that the new ones provide. + *some* manner of self sufficiency given the oft-times isolation by nature of said roles.

Point 3:
If you're referring to making mundanes more attractive to play in some capacity? Yes. There are on-going discussions about this staff side.

Point 4:
We've no active discussions to allow both full and sub at this time.

So, I understand that the decision was largely made for the sake of making these roles more easily playable and independent, but what I don't understand is why that possibility couldn't have been offered while leaving full-guild psions in place. For those that want to play characters which might see their psions too frustrating, painful, fragile, or easily discovered, the fact they have the choice of sub-guild psions is wonderful, and I love it, but for those that want characters with full access to psionics who they believe they can happily maintain with only access to a sub-guild (and I still believe that extended sub-guilds are more than capable of offering *some* manner of self sufficiency) then I don't understand why that can't be there for them too.

Also, regarding making mundanes more attractive to play, it does seem that roles like psions being relegated to the sub-guilds and given full access to mundane full guilds is part of the reason that normal mundanes are becoming less attractive to play in the first place, since they don't have any kind of significantly unique role themselves any more.

So:

Are there reasons other than function and playability that full-guild psions were removed? Sub-guild psions don't sound less powerful in the coded sense, since they can now access powerful mundane full guilds, and if anything they actually seem more powerful because of that, and if the aim wasn't just to take psionic and narrative power away from players, I don't understand the balance aspect (unless it was the intent to balance psions by making them more capable, not less)

Is there any reason other than the current desire to fully test and flesh out sub-guild psions that means full-guild and sub-guilds couldn't exist together and both be available options for players?

Also, to answer your question to me, can I clarify if the intention was to balance psions 'negatively' or 'positively', as in decrease or increase their power, before I answer that? I have ideas for both, but they are very different.

[ShaiHulud]

I wonder if it is possible, for those still wanting full-guilded Gicks and others, that sacrifices to main guild skills could offer access to a second aspect or something like that after reaching a point with primary aspect. Just a thought.

[Brokkr]

Are there reasons other than function and playability that full-guild psions were removed?

Yes.  However, we aren't going to get into that, as it involves some in-depth discussion of specific code mechanics. 

Ultimately, Armageddon is dynamic.  Things can and will change.  Sometimes it is just change, sometimes it is additional and sometimes it is a subtraction.  We are not a content oriented game like WOW that survives by continually adding new content but keeping around the old content.

The vision for the game was set to be shared main classes between mundanes and mages/psionicists, with the subclasses filling in the magick and psionic pieces.  With the exception of Templars.  It has been the vision for multiple years now.  We appreciate that some folks may not like that vision.  However, it is and continues to be the vision.  I may be interpreting things incorrectly, but this line of questioning seems like "justify your vision to me".

[Patuk]

I may be interpreting things incorrectly, but this line of questioning seems like "justify your vision to me".

It's a valid thing for players to ask.

[Mellifera]

Are there reasons other than function and playability that full-guild psions were removed?

Yes.  However, we aren't going to get into that, as it involves some in-depth discussion of specific code mechanics. 

Ultimately, Armageddon is dynamic.  Things can and will change.  Sometimes it is just change, sometimes it is additional and sometimes it is a subtraction.  We are not a content oriented game like WOW that survives by continually adding new content but keeping around the old content.

The vision for the game was set to be shared main classes between mundanes and mages/psionicists, with the subclasses filling in the magick and psionic pieces.  With the exception of Templars.  It has been the vision for multiple years now.  We appreciate that some folks may not like that vision.  However, it is and continues to be the vision.  I may be interpreting things incorrectly, but this line of questioning seems like "justify your vision to me".

Yeah! I am asking for staff to justify their vision to the players. I believe that's a reasonable thing to ask. I'm doing it with more specific questions as to why things were done, since they don't currently make sense to me, but yes, ultimately, I want to understand this vision.

Armageddon is a collaborative experience where the aim is fun and creativity. I don't think its playerbase should just be subject to an amorphous vision of the powers that be without justification, and I can see that's understood, and part of the reason we're getting more of these meetings and Q&A's.

I appreciate all the hard work and passion you guys constantly put into keeping this game alive and fun, but I also think it's important that there's proper communication between staff and players and that everyone has some kind of input. If a portion of the playerbase is unhappy with something that could harmlessly be resolved and staff's penultimate reasoning for continuing with it is "because we said so" that will rub some players the wrong way.

I'm personally invested with this change since psionicists have been my favourite part of Armageddon since I started playing, and it breaks my heart to see psions with full access to psionics leave the hands of players, but I think any sweeping vision like this should see a lot of transparency and back-and-forth between staff and players.

My questions are still essentially "Are there any reasons having both options wouldn't solve all the issues we're presented with?" Which isn't to say I think Armageddon should only add and never remove, but I do think removing this doesn't appear to help much on its own.

Anyway, truly love you guys and what you're doing, I just want to see Armageddon with a happy playerbase, communication from staff, and all of us working to make the most memorable, awesome stories we can. No ill will meant, and in the end I would like to be wrong and understand otherwise if I am.

[Greve]

I think the concern is that the same will happen to psionicists as did to sorcerers: when limited to one flavor of abilities, they're less defined by their nature than they were when they had access to all of them. As a result, they just stand out less. Sorcerers used to be so fascinating because they could cast any spell in the game. Now they can cast any spell from within the branch of magic that the player chose upon creation. It's just not as cool, and the days of world-renowned sorcerers appear to be a thing of the past.

As with the elementalist subclasses, they aren't necessarily less powerful than before, but their magic certainly is. Now it's mainly used to complement their mundane skills, and the thing you're worried about isn't so much their fearsome spells but rather their buffed-up combat skills. It's just not as amazing and intriguing as it was in the past when elementalists and especially sorcerers had to rely fully on their magics, and were able to do so, which meant that magic was a more prominent feature of the setting. Mixing magic with main classes may be more realistic, but it has also made it a sidenote, something that doesn't necessarily define the character's coded faculties, and consequently something that plays less of a role in the game. I think it's fair to express concern that the same might happen to psionicists.

One of the most interesting things about Armageddon was the mythical nature of its famous magickers. There's a list of names like Plainsman, White Rantarri, Black Tembo, Quick and Horoz that still come up to this day when people talk about legendary characters. Since the shift to elementalist and sorcerer subclasses, I can't think of any names that stand out in the same manner. Not a single legendary character comes to mind from the time after the full magick classes went the way of the dodo. While the nature of psionicists inherently makes them less prone to infamy, there were some rather memorable ones as well. It would be a shame if that becomes yet another one of those things that we only talk about in terms of "back in the day."

In the past, when non-mundanes had very little in the way of practical skills, the code sort of reinforced the documentation. They had a difficult time being part of ordinary society. It was pretty hard for a mage/sorc/psi to become a mercenary or craftsman, so they lived on the fringes of society. The class design kind of unintentionally supported the way that non-mundanes are portrayed in the game's lore. Now they can seamlessly coexist with anyone, and yet the role of magic in everyday roleplay seems to have diminished considerably. It turns out that when mages don't need to use spells to accomplish their goals, you just don't notice magic very much. I suspect there might be more mages per capita today than there were back then, but it feels like they barely exist.

[Nao]

[Removed - my fault, I didn't read the OP completely]

[Usiku]

Please do not post against or for other posters, derail or debate among each other, to keep this thread readable and productive. If commentary on questions or answers is needed, please create a sidebar discussion for such and treat each other with respect.

[Lotion]

I may be interpreting things incorrectly, but this line of questioning seems like "justify your vision to me".

Many players feel that because every gick, sorc, and psi gets to have a full main guild they are often mundane characters but better. The mechanical incentive to pick a mundane subguild over a nonmundane subguild is rather insignificant to a player who doesn't want to think really hard about how to effectively pair a guild together with subguild in a complimentary way.

[Brokkr]

I wasn't on Staff when the original formulation of the vision occurred.  I can only speak to where I come from in supporting the continuation of the vision.

My goal is to keep characters playable.  In the case of fully branched main guild sorcerers, truly advanced elementalists and high ranking templars, they could get to a point where they were unplayable. There is no end game for such characters.  Without sufficient challenge, interaction with the rest of the playerbase becomes less meaningful.  It then falls on Staff to represent the proper response from the game world, an inflated sense of that character's importance in the game world to either the player or worse the playerbase, and other pitfalls that happen when a character gets to a certain level of coded power.

Psionicists were much less than ideally playable in other ways.  Some is around how some players react to psionics, and some was around code.  We've taken a crack at code issues.  It then comes to looking at what we have done for sorcerers and elementalists, and make sure there is some parity for psionicists.  Not making them the new thing that is unplayable at the high end.  Not making them substantially more powerful than the sorcerer or templar options.  Making sure that interaction with the rest of the playerbase is still meaningful and challenging.

[triste]

My slimy two cents on the topic.

Overall I think the magick subguild change and this new psionics subguild change were good, however, I think the subguilds could have co-existed with mainguilds because variety is the spice of life.

With the magick subguild change, character concepts were indeed made more survivable both in terms of skills and in terms of blending in with mundanes.

But not everyone wanted a survivable, stealth mage. Some of us wanted to RP a character like Saruman from LotR, living in a tower, singing Tro-lo-lo, and casting a gabillion spells.

Real life reflects such variety. As a coder, I have co-workers like me who are living messes like Lizbeth Salander, riding motorcycles and shooting guns in our off time. Our skill sheets are a highly diversified mess just like our lives. I also have co-workes who are like Case from Neuromancer, total nerds who stay indoors all day to the extent that I have coworkers who haven't left their apartments once since the pandemic began. Case in Neuromancer needs his sidekick Molly Millions to do anything physical for him -- he was a lot like the full guild magickers in Armageddon who only had a small handful of skills besides hacking. There is nothing wrong with highly specialized concepts like this, in fact, I find them interesting and actually more likely to interact with mundane concepts.

With the magick subguild change, Sorcerors were at least maintained as your option for a highly specialized magick caster. But I think we lost a lot by losing the other full guild magickers -- I think most good roleplaying settings allow for a wide variety of concepts. This is why if you look at the number of classes in the first iteration of Dungeons and Dragons versus today, the number has only increased.

I can safely say my last full guild magicker, who was force-stored with the change, was very much unlike any of the other characters I played. I worry we lost a lot of interesting concepts, and perhaps even players, with the full guild magicker change. I like the magick subguilds a lot, and given the choice between main guild magick classes and subguild magick classes, I'd probably choose the subguild more often than not. However, I miss having the option, and the variety in roleplay that resulted.

PS: Please answer my question posted earlier, which other people want answered, when you have time, and thanks in advance.

[Brokkr]

Someone offered to ask this question but didn't:

Some of us love this game but are busy AF. Have staff considered changing policies or mechanics to make this game viable for very busy people?

Example: most weeks I can only play two hours at most. Improved mechanisms around asynchronous communication or changes to rules around OOC communication may make this game viable for people with playtimes so low.

Got specific examples?

What I am getting at is many players now have reduced playtimes, but the game can be hard to enjoy if you have reduced playtimes:
- Low playtimes bars you for getting most, if not all roles.
- When you have low playtimes, you are often assumed dead periodically because people have no offline means of getting in touch (besides clan forums).
- When you have low play times, you can feel almost guilty for getting involved in plots, and can lead to a reluctance to play at all.

As a result, many low playtime players effectively give up. This came up in nearly half of the posts in the thread asking old players who no longer play for feedback. It is obviously a blocker for many players who want to play, and keeps them from actually being able to play.

The low playtime problem is also extremely similar to the off peak playtime problem. SO, my question is has staff thought of potential solutions to the low playtime / off peak playtime problem?

Possible solutions I have proposed but please propose your own:
- offline way messages or other async in game messages.
- Better OOC comms than a clunky GDB and a chaotic Discord.
- open more roles suitable to low playtimes.

Looking forward to feedback! Again another player directly said they wanted an answer to my question as well, and this topic was heavily represented in the veteran feedback thread. Inquiring and busy minds want to know.

You've been fairly consistent with bringing this up, so I think most of us have seen your ideas here.

I can only speak for myself on this, but I am less interested in ideas that foster out of game interaction. I am interested in ideas that foster a more rich and rewarding experience IG. I see an implicit assumption that communication and coordination are necessary for that in your ask, but I am not sure that is necessarily the case. The thing that actually struck me and I have been thinking about a lot from the feedback thread was about Once Upon a Time if you were in Allanak, if you wanted to find someone, you went to Trader's or the Gaj, depending on who you wanted to find.  That was it.  Nobles/Templars/GMH Merchants didn't hang out in Estates/Private rooms when they weren't actively doing something, they were in Traders.  Everyone else was in the Gaj.  This may predate some people here, as it was roughly two decades ago. Finding interaction wasn't about coordinating, it was literally about going to a place.

[triste]

Very nice answer, I'll take it.

^{_{One of you all better not backstab my leadership PC in the Gaj again. THAT WAS MY ONLY CHANCE!! Guess I'll just have to grind my watch, listen and scan while mudsexxing before I ever step into a tavern, also give all leaders city scan.}}