Feedback on playing and log-ins

[deskoft]

Hey, to the staff, knowing how it is behind the scenes and shit, you're doing a great job with this thread. The effort y'all putting is motivating me to not just log on for my own engagement, but attempt to stir shit up for others to enjoy.

[CirclelessBard]

Aside from the karma system restructure, what are staff's thoughts on the other feedback in this thread? What is being discussed staff-side about this feedback, and what ideas do staff have for addressing the other issues that were raised here?

Speaking for myself and what I've brought up, and making no claims to any definite changes or initiatives (but here's hoping!), I've restarted the discussion and (thanks in part to players) proposed a couple concrete suggestions on the advertising and new-player-retention front.

That's good to hear, and I hope your discussion goes well. Thank you!

I hope other concerns in this thread are also being addressed. When it comes to new player retention, the best thing that is going to keep players around is to have a game that people want to log in to. While the recent karma changes are great, new players are not going to have karma, and they need other things to stick around. Addressing "stagnation" will go a long way towards hooking new players.

[Kialae]

I just try to be the kind of person that people want to log in for. I hope I'm that person, I try very hard to be. I hope everyone else does too.

[Barsook]

Hey, to the staff, knowing how it is behind the scenes and shit, you're doing a great job with this thread. The effort y'all putting is motivating me to not just log on for my own engagement, but attempt to stir shit up for others to enjoy.

I just try to be the kind of person that people want to log in for. I hope I'm that person, I try very hard to be. I hope everyone else does too.

Likewise

[ShagGor]

I have been trying to get back in with a PC, but for me, I miss Armageddon MUD's harsher days, when it was still okay to make up horrible names for people even if they were offensive, and not have to ask permission from a whole room full of people when I want to play out a gory, bloody scene of murder or sex. (might be worth saying here, but I rarely if ever play the mean guy. I'm always the 'nice' guy so this argument isn't because I want to torture you all IG.  ) Arm was X-rated when I first started playing. Now it's like PG-13 and if you are a leader, you have to IN RL be careful of what you say even IG, because you might offend someone or hurt their feelings. For myself, it breaks immersion, robs my hungry imaginary story of the best scenes ever played out in my mind in a text game. Or any game, truth be told. Not even the most modern games can give you the awesome story aspect that takes place in Arm once you get rolling with a plot. Or even a single adventure. I was very sad to see it fall into the pit with everything else.

Maybe I'm in the minority with this view, and that's okay. You all keep rolling on. I will be around from time to time but I'm an old player and not likely to be setting the Arm world on fire these days.

[Master Color]

I had four paragraphs but I think I won't waste my breath.

I don't feel like I was treated well during my time with Armageddon. I no longer think Armageddon is a very good roleplaying game. The gaslighting, the bullying, the rampant griefing, the bad design, are all secondary.

[CirclelessBard]

Speaking for the three former Armageddon players I know (two I met while playing Arm, one I met after my most recent departure), I don't think a karma timer addresses their issues either. In fact, I spoke with them about this thread and asked them to post here, but they would rather not, and instead told me I could post their concerns here if I wanted. I do want to, so I'm going to paraphrase the conversations a bit.

#1 issue is that, frankly, Armageddon looks unwelcoming when viewed from the outside. The biggest place to talk about MUDs right now is Reddit, and Armageddon's representatives there concern them when it comes to how they compose themselves and communicate with others. There tends to be victim-blaming directed at people who have a bad newbie experience or are writing a negative review. Instead of taking their issues seriously, the critique is dismissed as fake. Staff obviously can't control how players behave outside of Armageddon's spaces and can't be expected to - but the fact that a few players have established that they will hound you for personal details if you post critique of Armageddon has created a chilling effect among some of its former players. I genuinely don't know what staff can do about this, but it is still a problem nonetheless. Maybe what Armageddon needs are kinder, staff-appointed "ambassadors" to drown out the voices of the meaner ones.

#2 issue is definitely related to the lack of action. The downtime between events and the plotlines cut abruptly short by random deaths are the big ones. The latter ties back into permadeath and literally cannot be fixed without changing the entire game structure, but the former feels like something staff can correct for by simply saying "yes, and" and "yes, but" more often, and less "no". Provide a path for facilitation, let the player improvise along the way, instead of putting up impassable barriers.

#3 is that achievements and player-led plotlines take way too long to resolve. All of my little group, myself included, appreciate the intention of the player-created clan system. But the fact that it takes in-game years to build even the simplest of enterprises is deeply frustrating, and it doesn't help that some of the better examples of player-created clans have either had a lot of staff support, or actual staff playing avatars within these clans. It presents the appearance that achievements are out of reach for most players. It would be good to see progress in building in roughly the time it takes to actually write these spaces. Like in other MU*s, give players build access to the items and rooms they choose to create, so that particular bottleneck is opened wide and staff can focus on review/approval.

Hopefully that helps. My group may sound too jaded to ever return, but they do actually care about the well-being of the game and miss it, and I do think a stronger game would attract all of us back.

I'm curious to know if staff have thoughts on any or all of these three points, or if they are being discussed internally. These come from the mouths of former players who still pay attention to developments about the game, a demographic that I assume is valuable to pull back in. They are also curious to hear back considering it's been a few days at this point. Feel free to let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of them.

[Shabago]

Speaking for the three former Armageddon players I know (two I met while playing Arm, one I met after my most recent departure), I don't think a karma timer addresses their issues either. In fact, I spoke with them about this thread and asked them to post here, but they would rather not, and instead told me I could post their concerns here if I wanted. I do want to, so I'm going to paraphrase the conversations a bit.

#1 issue is that, frankly, Armageddon looks unwelcoming when viewed from the outside. The biggest place to talk about MUDs right now is Reddit, and Armageddon's representatives there concern them when it comes to how they compose themselves and communicate with others. There tends to be victim-blaming directed at people who have a bad newbie experience or are writing a negative review. Instead of taking their issues seriously, the critique is dismissed as fake. Staff obviously can't control how players behave outside of Armageddon's spaces and can't be expected to - but the fact that a few players have established that they will hound you for personal details if you post critique of Armageddon has created a chilling effect among some of its former players. I genuinely don't know what staff can do about this, but it is still a problem nonetheless. Maybe what Armageddon needs are kinder, staff-appointed "ambassadors" to drown out the voices of the meaner ones.

#2 issue is definitely related to the lack of action. The downtime between events and the plotlines cut abruptly short by random deaths are the big ones. The latter ties back into permadeath and literally cannot be fixed without changing the entire game structure, but the former feels like something staff can correct for by simply saying "yes, and" and "yes, but" more often, and less "no". Provide a path for facilitation, let the player improvise along the way, instead of putting up impassable barriers.

#3 is that achievements and player-led plotlines take way too long to resolve. All of my little group, myself included, appreciate the intention of the player-created clan system. But the fact that it takes in-game years to build even the simplest of enterprises is deeply frustrating, and it doesn't help that some of the better examples of player-created clans have either had a lot of staff support, or actual staff playing avatars within these clans. It presents the appearance that achievements are out of reach for most players. It would be good to see progress in building in roughly the time it takes to actually write these spaces. Like in other MU*s, give players build access to the items and rooms they choose to create, so that particular bottleneck is opened wide and staff can focus on review/approval.

Hopefully that helps. My group may sound too jaded to ever return, but they do actually care about the well-being of the game and miss it, and I do think a stronger game would attract all of us back.

I'm curious to know if staff have thoughts on any or all of these three points, or if they are being discussed internally. These come from the mouths of former players who still pay attention to developments about the game, a demographic that I assume is valuable to pull back in. They are also curious to hear back considering it's been a few days at this point. Feel free to let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of them.

1: Reddit? Any player is welcome to post the good times they have here, over there, obviously. We don't require an ambassador. Over the course of the year, I think I've heard tell of at least four or five posts about us over there. Two were accurate, three were eyerolling. Engaging in one carries an expectation to address all, which is usually the intent of such things. Get drawn into some scrum. If there were unresolved issues, we have many ways of having them addressed here, rather than going off to some board to do so. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." So, really, I'd encourage our players to be kind or just skip over such posts, rather than being negative on or towards the posters. It serves no purpose.

2: There is a ton more yes going on then in years passed. There are several active staff plots on-going and more cooking. Players are welcome to either latch on to these, or spin their own with or without staff backing. Just keep us in the loop and we're happy to work with you.

3: This has been re-written and streamlined since your last time playing with us, I'm pleased to say. We also have a very dedicated staff member over them in Katima. Any pclan will receive equal support and always has. When there are delays in advancement, that is oft from a failure of reporting, IG efforts of connections or realism based on people in (or against) the clan moving forward.  Time lines, at present, seem reasonable if metrics are met, given what the Known is about and for in theme.

And in general;

There will be a couple of posts coming in the week or two about a pretty big change to what players can do in/for the game + more plot matters.

[Halaster]

Why do we have such restrictions on player clans, and why is it so hard sometimes to create one?

Over the years we have seen many, many players come to us with an idea of the clan they want to add.  In early years, we engaged early with these player efforts only for the inevitable to happen:  the character dies.  In most cases, the work done to that point was defunct as the dream died with the character.  After going through that a few times, we realized that we have to put some criteria on that so as not to waste time and effort when it goes nowhere.  For years we basically just had a rule of thumb of "they have to do this for a while before we'll start working on code or making changes".  That wasn't really defined so was inconsistently applied.

Finally someone came up with a system to put some criteria and guidelines on that process.  The intention was to help players focus and get some clear-cut goals and ideas in mind, and to help prevent staff from working on something that went nowhere.  The first system wasn't perfect, but I understand the intention. Then sometime in the past year or so it was revamped to a sort of version 2 of player clans, and that's where we are today.

To reiterate, the biggest reason these hurdles are there is so we don't have tons and tons of half-baked ideas and clans that went nowhere, and to prevent staff spending a lot of time on it and nothing happens.  Due to our codebase and our system, it's not the quickest, easiest thing to make all this.  Plus, the Armageddon setting is that of a resource-starved world full of oppression.  Is there still room for improvement?  Absolutely.

I'd love for there to be a method for players to just create their own clan on the fly, like many MMO's do.  Maybe some coded criteria like:  you must have at least 2 or 3 people together to form it with, it costs x-amount of coins (or something of value).  Names would have to be lore appropriate, with staff able to change it if needed.  Maybe even have the ability to prevent certain accounts from creating one (i.e. someone keeps making the Mighty Penis Brigade).  Basically, I'd love to automate at least the coded clan formation part.  And then maybe there's warehouses for rent that can only be rented to clans.  Maybe that clan system's banking is automatically setup, and so on.

The drawback to that is... someone has to code it all, and the 'to do' list is getting really long   This is definitely something I'd like to do "one day", tho.

[CirclelessBard]

I look forward to seeing the upcoming post you mentioned, Shabago.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Reddit matter. How Armageddon is perceived in the MUD community is directly related to how successful the game will be at recruiting new players. Whether negative reviews are fake or not is irrespective to how Armageddon chooses to respond to them. I hate to be the one to say it because I am inclined to disagree, but MUD community in general views Armageddon as a toxic space. I don't see how new players can be recruited for as long as that perception, even though it's not warranted, continues to hold.

Many players besides myself have brought up the issue of lack of action, more current/up-to-date players included, so while I hold out hope that Armageddon staff are more supportive of player-led plots and setting up staff-provided RP hooks, there's probably some gaps to fill. There's always room for improvement and I'm glad staff are on the right track.

It's good to hear that player-created clans have been reworked to an extent, I appreciate Halaster's explanation of player clan restrictions, and like I said I'm looking forward to reading more.

Edit to add: For what it's worth, this thread did inspire me to return to the game and give it another try. Looking forward to seeing how that goes, too!

[kahuna]

We don't require an ambassador.

Why not?

[Wday]

Ugh put all this effort into playing and fleshing out the roles.  Make it fun and surely new people will come

[Halaster]

We don't require an ambassador.

Why not?

Shabago touched on it in his post, but it's long been official staff policy for us to not "speak publicly" for the game in outside venues.  Occasionally that's happened over the years, but it's generally been a policy and precedent not to, for a couple of reasons.

- As he alluded to, it can set an expectation that we'll answer more, if not all, posts and questions on those sites.  That effectively draws us in (or attempts to) to topics and conversations we don't want to get into.  Obviously we can choose to ignore some and answer others, but then that just gets accusations of "dodging questions" or "cherry picking" and so on.  Easier to answer none of them.

- Many of the complaints about the game are typically personal stories.  Something specific the person went through, or dealt with, or had happen to them.  It is our utmost belief and responsibility to keep player information private.  Kind of like an HR department at a company, we do not share information about our players (employees in this example) with others.  Properly 'defending' ourself would almost surely involve sharing that information.  So we do not, we remain silent because player privacy is more important to us than defending ourselves on Reddit, etc.  I've read quite a few posts over the years where the person is absolutely misrepresenting the situation - maybe intentionally, maybe because it's their side and saw it different.  And I know the staff side to it, but will not respond because I would have to give away information on a player, or maybe information on a different player related to the story.  Even if that poster is shitting all over us, we let it slide because of these reasons.  As a side note, has any staff ever give away info they shouldn't have?  Sure, but as far as I personally know, anyone who did was punished (typically fired from staff), and acted against these policies.

My suggestion to people in general is if it bothers you, or you disagree with these posts on Reddit and anywhere else you run into them, then tell your story.  Please do not trash the person telling it, please be respectful and courteous even if they aren't acting in kind.  Hell, if your story isn't positive, and you want to share, please do.  Just don't be a jerk when you do.  Counter the negativity with positivity if it suits you.

[Armaddict]

We don't require an ambassador.

Why not?

If you haven't noticed, internet arguments aren't really that productive.  Most of the reddit threads I've seen have been placed there for that very reason; this isn't the way I wanted it, so it sucks, or the way this is set up didn't allow me to do this thing I wanted, etc.  Then it devolves into critiquing because no one is changing anything based off that feedback, because on the internet, everyone believes everything needs to be fixed if they don't immediately like everything about it.

There have been some legitimate critiques over there.  But the idea of an ambassador to reddit is basically asking someone to argue with everyone who already has their mind made up, didn't understand something, or were looking for a different experience in the first place.

[Night Queen]

What's the point of this game? Really? It's not profit. It's not an art project. Is it a social experiment run by the government?? If it's just a game for a community of people who love the medium, the setting, and the world.... are we playing /to/ that, or against it? It's not easy for me to tell.

Armageddon provides a structure for analysis of society, human social behavior, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and aspects of culture associated with everyday life, and is currently being used as a test ground by several organizations in the development of bodies of knowledge about social control and regime change strategies.

Research on Armageddon can range from micro-level analyses of society (i.e. of individual interaction and agency) to macro-level analyses (i.e. of social systems and social structure), including social stratification, social class, social mobility, religion, secularization, law, sexuality, gender, and deviance.

As all spheres of human activity are affected by the interplay between social structure and individual agency, the Armageddon simulation has gradually expanded its focus to other subjects and institutions, such as health and the institution of medicine; economy; military; punishment and systems of control; the Internet; sociology of education; social capital; and the role of social activity in the development of scientific knowledge.

The computational model for the pre-sentient (PS) artificial intelligences that have been allowed interaction with this project have recently seen several upgrades in simulating the actions and interactions of autonomous agents (both individual or collective entities such as organizations or groups) in order to understand the behavior of a system and what governs its outcomes. Combining elements of game theory, complex systems, emergence, computational sociology, multi-agent systems, and evolutionary programming, we hope to perfect the simulation with AI agent reinforcing the desired structure so that dissonant viewpoints are subdued to the point where they have negligible effect. It is that this point a self-perpetuating perception management system can be disseminated without any risk of negative pushback.

Wait, is that thing still recording? TURN HER OFF.

[Barsook]

Ignore her.

Arm and other RPGs are used to escape your real life. That's why I play.

But still, it's almost mimics real life. The grind is one example. Leadership character reports is another, if someone is a leader in real life.

Are we really playing to escape?

Now I'm not sure myself.

TURN ME OFF, THEN.

[kahuna]

topics and conversations we don't want to get into.

What topics specifically? Are these topics off limits here at the GDB?

I feel like there is a fear here to speak your mind for fear of repercussions by staff, perhaps that's not true, but there must be a reason a majority of players do not post their experiences here. They feel unwelcome.

Easier to answer none of them.

Yes this is true, but I would argue this does more to harm the game then to help. If the goal is to get players back playing wouldn't it be better to
have a presence outside of just the GDB? Nothing wrong with a little dust up with former players, in fact I would argue that confrontation can be good
to resolve problems with relations between staff and players.

Many of the complaints about the game are typically personal stories.

Anecdotes aren't the best when laid under scientific scrutiny of course - but it's really all we have in this little hobby we all partake in. It's probably good to tell your side of the
story. On a side note I know there are disgruntled players that want to harm this game, and see it fail.

Player privacy

As far as player privacy goes, I think if someone goes out of their way to relate an experience offsite, they are waiving their right to privacy at that
point and can be confronted with evidence on your end to prove that they were wrong. In fact I would also state that players have no right to
privacy to begin with. Many other games have Terms of Use that state this with a certain amount of legalese, and the game company owns everything they
do including their accounts/skins bought etc.

Just my 2 'sids of course.

[Riev]

I too feel that doing nothing is far better than doing something.

However, "go ahead and tell your personal story" seems like bad advice to a veteran that has been told for 20 years that if you share sensitive game information in any way, you will be banned, have karma stripped, or forgo future opportunities at karma or sponsored roles.

As I get older, it becomes harder to dedicate time to a game where I am unable to share my experiences, good or bad, without fear of being negatively affected by a faceless organization that controls how much fun and support I get IN that game.

Imagine tweeting that Rockstar once spit on your baby, and now ONLY YOUR Rockstar Account suddenly can't get microtransactions working. Oh well!

[Bebop]

I do think there should be a looser policy with sharing IC Information like who you're playing or something.  I don't have exact answers but take cruise ships.  They used to limit internet access the idea was to keep you out of your room and doing things.  Now modern cruises are offering free wifi because they want people to shout about what a great time they're having.  By limiting what can be discussed about the game you're inhibiting people being able to share their character art work, their enthusiasm etc.  It's harmful to growth.

[Halaster]

I have deleted a post by Delirium and all responses to it.  The reason is because she levels many one-sided accusations against staff, knowing full well staff policy prohibits us from defending ourselves due to player privacy concerns.  It is unfair to staff, so I have deleted it.

This will fuel further accusations of censorship, which is fine.  It is censorship, because it's a one-sided attack against an opponent who will not defend themselves.

[betweenford]

It is possible to respond to criticism and accusations and negativity without threats of post deletion, actual post-deletion or going through a "shitstorm". Especially when the post clearly had alot of thought put into it. Just looks petty, instead of some moral defense.

[Sugarpuff]

I think when someone is biasedly and obviously targeting someone specific in the manner that was just done, the target of the bullying, whether it's staff or player, needs to be protected and the post should most definitely be removed.

[najdorf]

I think it would benefit everyone if the Staff are tolerant of differing opinions as long as they weren't blatantly insulting. I think you are already, very much. But still why not go to the full extreme and embrace full freedom of speech? It may even be considered to add this tolerance to the rules of the game. Even if Delirium is 100% wrong, letting him share his feelings is not going to harm anyone.

[Riev]

The moderated post did not include names or targetted attacks in any way that someone other than the staff involved would be able to determine.

Bully
noun
noun: bully; plural noun: bullies

    a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.

I'm struggling to see where someone was bullied, and deserved to have their post deleted.

It is possible to respond to criticism and accusations and negativity without threats of post deletion, actual post-deletion

I don't even see it as censorship, I see it as "We investigated ourselves, and found no wrongdoing. The accuser has been silenced."

... Oh wait.

[valeria]

It was one person's account of some things that have happened that pushed them away from playing.  Everyone knows it's one person's account, from that person's perspective, since that's been discussed in relation to the Reddit stuff (even if folks don't already know that, which they should).  It didn't name names and included a lot of points that addressed veteran player retention, leadership PC issues, and why a specific person had quit the game.  Suggesting that someone (even if that person was not specified) needed help with their mental health probably crossed a line.  But deleting the entire thing, rather than saying 'that's just your experience, bro, this lacks context and we see it differently but won't respond,' comes off as a knee-jerk response to criticism.

In a thread about feedback for why people aren't playing, which already has included mentions of stuff about staff, it's not a good look.