Game wide changes discussion thread:

[Shabago]

As seen here: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58019.0.html
Post your comments, concerns and questions.

[mansa]

Overall, the post makes me feel excited.


Questions:

1) A return to staff spending more time on facilitated plot drives and story arcs.

...Our discussions, brainstorming and goals revolve around a rotational story focus, where one plot leads into the next. A portion of the game world will always be active in some capacity, while encouraging interaction based on the former location.

After reading that paragraph, my gut reaction is:
"I don't think there is enough /current/ staff to facilitate this."

2) Player background and player started plots:

...Staff, when spotting something in the background of a player in their area, zone or clan that they wish to bring to life and have the available time, will do so. In order to make this less jarring or go against player wishes at present, it is asked that players note in a character report if they wish to have their background or bios be free game. This is an all or nothing aspect - either all of your background/bios are open for usage, or none.

After reading this, my gut reaction is:
Is there also a flag we can put on characters in game, so staff doesn't have to cross-reference a request in the request tool?  Perhaps a bio entry stating "*Background if Free Game to play in game*" or some other opt-in method that would shorten the time it takes from this journey:

Staff reads cool background, and wants to bring to life some background virtual character for a player
->
Staff searches request tool to find opt-in message from that player
->
Staff creates NPC / echoes in game that bring life to that player

I feel there might be a smoother opt-in method, but I'm not sure what it could be.

3) A more vibrant and alive world through rumor:

Through the usage of in-game, GDB and clan boards, rumors will go out about the game world. This is experimental and comes with a few expectation setting points.
Namely;
1) a post may be rather bland and short or quite robust in nature. A single sentence about Borsail slave sales, or a 'Coming Soon' style story about Red Storm.
2) These do not guarantee the start of an RPT - these are to make the world feel more alive.
3) Trust is being extended that usage of said rumors will only be used where appropriate for IC knowledge. An Aide of Tor will not know the latest rumor about the Sun Runners.
4) Yes, where appropriate, these rumors can be used in character background/creation or story-start creation of the player.

Yes yes yes!  I think most fellow players know how I feel about sharing current in-game events out-of-game so newly created characters can easily join in the fun.

B) Potential new playable options/area(s).

Pick me pick me I volunteer to support/playtest/write this.

[Patuk]

Cool stuff, man. Looking good out there

[Barsook]

So hyped! Thanks for listening to us and being transparent!

[Halcyon]

Happy to see this, and the general shape of it already in the last year of rpts.

[Malken]

Sounds good.

[Fawcett]

This is a great post, I hope it all comes true.

[Shabago]

Overall, the post makes me feel excited.


Questions:

1) A return to staff spending more time on facilitated plot drives and story arcs.

...Our discussions, brainstorming and goals revolve around a rotational story focus, where one plot leads into the next. A portion of the game world will always be active in some capacity, while encouraging interaction based on the former location.

After reading that paragraph, my gut reaction is:
"I don't think there is enough /current/ staff to facilitate this."

2) Player background and player started plots:

...Staff, when spotting something in the background of a player in their area, zone or clan that they wish to bring to life and have the available time, will do so. In order to make this less jarring or go against player wishes at present, it is asked that players note in a character report if they wish to have their background or bios be free game. This is an all or nothing aspect - either all of your background/bios are open for usage, or none.

After reading this, my gut reaction is:
Is there also a flag we can put on characters in game, so staff doesn't have to cross-reference a request in the request tool?  Perhaps a bio entry stating "*Background if Free Game to play in game*" or some other opt-in method that would shorten the time it takes from this journey:

Staff reads cool background, and wants to bring to life some background virtual character for a player
->
Staff searches request tool to find opt-in message from that player
->
Staff creates NPC / echoes in game that bring life to that player

I feel there might be a smoother opt-in method, but I'm not sure what it could be.

3) A more vibrant and alive world through rumor:

Through the usage of in-game, GDB and clan boards, rumors will go out about the game world. This is experimental and comes with a few expectation setting points.
Namely;
1) a post may be rather bland and short or quite robust in nature. A single sentence about Borsail slave sales, or a 'Coming Soon' style story about Red Storm.
2) These do not guarantee the start of an RPT - these are to make the world feel more alive.
3) Trust is being extended that usage of said rumors will only be used where appropriate for IC knowledge. An Aide of Tor will not know the latest rumor about the Sun Runners.
4) Yes, where appropriate, these rumors can be used in character background/creation or story-start creation of the player.

Yes yes yes!  I think most fellow players know how I feel about sharing current in-game events out-of-game so newly created characters can easily join in the fun.

B) Potential new playable options/area(s).

Pick me pick me I volunteer to support/playtest/write this.

On concern one, staff workload:

Valid. It's always a concern. People can have a ton of RL factors come up to impact such things. That said, I believe the recent changes we've made to staff teams, workload and some shifts in how certain things are handled should free up time for those on the team. I've further pre-checked with our team about those willing and able to dedicate more time to such things, and the desire is there.

On concern two, background opt-in:

We're "werkin'" on that. Stay tuned. One consideration is re-purposing some flags we already have for the game.

On play-testing:

If there's a need for such, I'll keep you in mind!

[Fredd]

I love it. I love fighting waves of gith, or large monsters. I Love reasons to explore. It'll give reason for conflict between the power bases as well.

I am worried about the trade-off to the player-driven plots though.

[najdorf]

these are always great, thanks.
on a side note for mansa's
"I don't think there is enough /current/ staff to facilitate this."

I am a little bit cautious on this. On one hand I have the feeling that staff applications draw from good quality player pool, and even though staff still play characters I wouldn't be happy if 70% characters I interact are staff. I'm assuming that although they are loyal to RP, they can navigate and watch my characters, that is a little off putting. Not that they will cheat or anything, but still I would prefer to play with actual players.

[Veselka]

Quick thought: I think you could repurpose the "Roleplay Review" tag that people can toggle on and off with their game account. I don't think it's really used much currently, and can be retitled to "Total Opt in for use of biographies and background by Staff". I feel you could make it account based rather than character based — you can log in at the Home Screen and there is an option (once logged in) that you can toggle on and off. If you toggle it on, there is an explanation (brief) and a link to a help file. If you toggle it off, a brief explanation of what you are opting out of and link to help file.

[Riev]

I am upset there is nothing I can be salty about in the post. You could have slipped "except for Riev's PCs" in there and it would have made sense.

[Hestia]

I am upset there is nothing I can be salty about in the post. You could have slipped "except for Riev's PCs" in there and it would have made sense.

There's no point in being salty if you don't press it onto a nice hot baked pretzel logic paranoia. So here's some pretzel logic to feed your paranoia. No extra charge:

We haven't announced our plans for your PC. That was intentional on our part. You'll just have to find out IC what those plans are. But the plans are big ones. Huge. Huge big plans. For your PC. Watch this space!

[X-D]

Keep in mind, huge big plans means you get lice and a cool echo.

[Barsook]

Quick thought: I think you could repurpose the "Roleplay Review" tag that people can toggle on and off with their game account. I don't think it's really used much currently, and can be retitled to "Total Opt in for use of biographies and background by Staff". I feel you could make it account based rather than character based — you can log in at the Home Screen and there is an option (once logged in) that you can toggle on and off. If you toggle it on, there is an explanation (brief) and a link to a help file. If you toggle it off, a brief explanation of what you are opting out of and link to help file.

I dig this idea. I'm all in for anything that makes it easier for everyone to get story hooks.

these are always great, thanks.
on a side note for mansa's
"I don't think there is enough /current/ staff to facilitate this."

I am a little bit cautious on this. On one hand I have the feeling that staff applications draw from good quality player pool, and even though staff still play characters I wouldn't be happy if 70% characters I interact are staff. I'm assuming that although they are loyal to RP, they can navigate and watch my characters, that is a little off putting. Not that they will cheat or anything, but still I would prefer to play with actual players.

While I do agree with you on the first part, but in reality, how many players would notice that it's a staffer playing those toons?  I never really have noticed.