2023 Karma Revamp Discussion

[adri]

Also on the topic of the noble using their aide as a personal sexdoll, is GMH members who do similar with crafters. It's not to uncommon to see a Merchant using the power imbalance to sleep with their employees. And I'm sure some people want that kinda RP sometimes.

But I've also seen fairly new players put into pretty scummy situations. Situations I will point out the Law is more or less obligated to side with the GMH family member in, even if they are legit in the wrong. I know we've lost at least 1 new player because this situation mirrored something she went through IRL and was not comfortable with roleplaying.

imho the one and ONLY piece of trust a GMH role NEEDS is: "Will they abuse their power sexually" Because this not only hurts the GMH because it sheds employees. GMH roles are where newer crafter players learn the ropes. So it's making us, as players, look pretty bad.

It's against the new-ish updated consent policy (viewable in the helpfile) for this to happen. It should be handled via player complaint, if you're aware of such going on, imo.

Voila:

"In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said imbalance could be interpreted as leverage (sexual coercion storylines are not forbidden) for an adult situation, consent must be sought at the earliest possible juncture along with direction to this help file. This applies to all leadership roles as well as powerful roles such as known sorcerers.

The earliest possible juncture means as soon as you are aware that your PC desires a sexual or romantic encounter with another PC.

This means a leader (/powerful PC) must first obtain general consent to pursue a romantic relationship with another PC and then subsequently consent must always continue to be sought for any sexually explicit scenes, each time they may occur, if the FTB mechanism is not being employed."

[Fredd]

Also on the topic of the noble using their aide as a personal sexdoll, is GMH members who do similar with crafters. It's not to uncommon to see a Merchant using the power imbalance to sleep with their employees. And I'm sure some people want that kinda RP sometimes.

But I've also seen fairly new players put into pretty scummy situations. Situations I will point out the Law is more or less obligated to side with the GMH family member in, even if they are legit in the wrong. I know we've lost at least 1 new player because this situation mirrored something she went through IRL and was not comfortable with roleplaying.

imho the one and ONLY piece of trust a GMH role NEEDS is: "Will they abuse their power sexually" Because this not only hurts the GMH because it sheds employees. GMH roles are where newer crafter players learn the ropes. So it's making us, as players, look pretty bad.

It's against the new-ish updated consent policy (viewable in the helpfile) for this to happen. It should be handled via player complaint, if you're aware of such going on, imo.

Voila:

"In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said imbalance could be interpreted as leverage (sexual coercion storylines are not forbidden) for an adult situation, consent must be sought at the earliest possible juncture along with direction to this help file. This applies to all leadership roles as well as powerful roles such as known sorcerers.

The earliest possible juncture means as soon as you are aware that your PC desires a sexual or romantic encounter with another PC.

This means a leader (/powerful PC) must first obtain general consent to pursue a romantic relationship with another PC and then subsequently consent must always continue to be sought for any sexually explicit scenes, each time they may occur, if the FTB mechanism is not being employed."

Oh, Very good.

[Pariah]

So is this still going to happen @Brokkr and @Usiku seeing as how it appears to have had overwhelming dislike from the (vocal at least) playerbase?

[Windstorm]

The vocal playerbase hates everything, including each other.

I'm looking forward to the changes!

[dumbstruck]

The vocal playerbase hates everything, including each other.

I'm looking forward to the changes!

Not the case.

The analyze change was damn near universally loved.

[RheaGhe]

The vocal playerbase hates everything, including each other.

I'm looking forward to the changes!

Not the case.

The analyze change was damn near universally loved.

I saw people complain that the analyze change made things too easy for crafting characters.

I also saw people complain at the time of the analyze change that it devalued their current acquired knowledge.

Looking at this change, through the lens of that change. It's actually relatively similar. The whole thing is about passing off player knowledge and control of a system. Analyze was objectively a bad change for old players. Because it devalued their built up knowledge heavily and made it so that the recipes and such were more fluid and available. But it was good for anyone who didn't have that built up knowledge base. Because it freed them from the constraints and gave them targets to aim for.

This change is doing much the same.

[dumbstruck]

I would say as one is about liberating content that older players were hordeing for an unfair advantage and the other is literally about gating content from everyone and their brother, to me they couldn't be more different.

Almost opposite of one another.

And funnily enough, one was almost universally loved (with a few loud oppositional voices) and the other almost universally disliked (with a few loud people in favor).

And funnily enough... the polling actually backs that up.

[Kaathe]

overwhelming dislike from the (vocal at least) playerbase?

literally about gating content from everyone and their brother, to me they couldn't be more different.

It's hard for me to see past the initial assumptions that it would take months to get some or all of your roles restored. That's incorrect. The intent is it's done fast and well before you need to roll your next PC.

I see the concern this will burn staff out, and I get some people gall at having to ask for a review to get bumped back up. These don't seem to be the chief complaints though. So I'm not sure we are all talking about the same thing.

[dumbstruck]

For me, @Kaathe there is a fundamental disagreement from the jump. I genuinely believe that after an initial point of say, 1-2 months to get acquainted with the game world, people should just have access to the game content. All of it. Until they prove that they cannot handle it, maliciously or purposefully. (Which is to say, if someone fucks up, talk to them about it first before taking the option, but if they keep fucking up, take the option) ... I believe that that is going to take less work and cause less hurt and harm.

But then, every time I see something new it feels like it is doing the opposite of empowering players or their pcs. The analyze change did the opposite. And everyone loved it. Because it gave them access to more of the game that they love. Rather than the reverse.

I feel like stratifying karma into 11 ranks for what might be 10 people in each bracket if they are split equally for a whole ass panel of people to judge the roleplay that they do for fun does not sound like it is going to end well or be positive. I just don't. There's not a number of changes that can be made to change my mind. I came from the 8 karma system and it wasn't better. It was just shittier people who were closer to staff or older players when karma was really freely given who were abusing the shit out of the system. Why? The element of human judgement. If you like someone and want them to succeed at something, you will find excuses and reasons for them to succeed, and if you don't like them and don't want their projects to succeed, you will find every possible reason and excuse for them to fail.

[Armaddict]

I saw people complain that the analyze change made things too easy for crafting characters.

I also saw people complain at the time of the analyze change that it devalued their current acquired knowledge.

Looking at this change, through the lens of that change. It's actually relatively similar. The whole thing is about passing off player knowledge and control of a system. Analyze was objectively a bad change for old players. Because it devalued their built up knowledge heavily and made it so that the recipes and such were more fluid and available. But it was good for anyone who didn't have that built up knowledge base. Because it freed them from the constraints and gave them targets to aim for.

This change is doing much the same.

This seems really suspect, and I spent time searching all the threads on analyze to find something like this.  The only thing remotely close to a complaint that I could find post-change was someone asking for a Press Enter to Continue prompt.  The complaints pre-change were numerous.

As usual, this seems to be a shallow way of devaluing people's concerns with them being older in the game, as if that's some sort of terrible value to have.  People with insights of where it's been and attachments to things that have worked for them OH NO.

These are the easiest things to dismiss for everyone except for someone who is actually newer to the game harboring some idea that we're all out to get you because of a find out IC approach that has been there for decades.

In this case, I think that saying that the only people with problems are the vocal minority is a misnomer.  I also think calling it universally hated is a misnomer.  I think over pages and pages, people have been very clear about what they're uncertain about, like, and dislike, and the majority, even those vocal few, have both positives and negatives.

I think the call to 'hit the cancel button' is exaggerated.  I think the call to examine more deeply some of the workings and how they will impact functionality and conversations is not.  And I think the dismissal of pages of relatively well laid out concerns, many of which are answered (often just not to the original complainant's satisfaction), as just people being attached to the way things were because of some advantage it gives them is, again, where the community grows toxicity that is far more pervasive than some guy who likes being powerful could ever be.  I think you could probably check those kind of assumptions you have about veterans, because when they spill out in discourse like this it doesn't ring anywhere near true, and actually makes you seem more like an attacker than anything else.

[RheaGhe]

Bogre — 01/19/2023 6:28 AM
stuff like this is why i wish the analyze change didn't make that so much easier

Yes a lot of people praised it. But I have seen people complain about it as well. Which was my point.

The Analyze change is great, but to brand it as a purely good thing for everyone is... In denial that it removed a critical component of previous crafter skilling, which was the action of actually finding recipes to craft.

Analyzing it deeper. I have also, in my own experience as a crafter, found it harder and harder to RP as a non-know-it-all, as far as crafting goes. The average person could say figure out a recipe, if they had the item in hand. But just having one piece of the puzzle, and seeing everything that can be made from it. Actively lessens the amount of RP and effort it takes to actually be a crafter.

This is what I also meant. You can find a negative in everything. That there are negatives to the new karma change doesn't mean it should be filed away as utterly horrible.

That there are negatives to the karma change means that those negatives should be compared to the stated objectives. And weighed.

[Armaddict]

Perhaps I misread your intent.  That happens often in text.  I think your quote is pointing to something that is not about the change itself, but some other behavior in the game facilitated by that change, but I didn't really want to nitpick over that as much as say that old people, veterans, and info hoarders aren't out there with some diabolical plan to maintain advantage over people.

I watch people on Youtube reacting to Tool for the first time, because every now and again you find that person where the music was just -made- for them.  It's not from a place of resentment; it's almost envy, seeing someone else experience it for the first time.

The beauty of tight-lipped veterans is that they generally know that some of these things, things that will vary from person to person, are going to make you freak out with how awesome that was.  The same way we did.  I found it odd in this conversation, because I don't see it as particularly veterans that have qualms; the crowd has been varied, so have the concerns, so has the spectrum of intensity on it.

I have very serious qualms, but not because of the karma itself.  I view the combination of loss of roles, redefinition of karma and what it will mean, and the mechanics of how it works as a recipe for a backslide of staff/player relations over things that are actually understandable and easily grasped as long as they're just...used and treated as light-heartedly as it should be.  But I don't find most other concerns particularly unjustified, just like I don't view hopes of it as unjustified; I believe this is an opportunity to make a very real shift in both player and staff mentality about how we contribute to the health of the game collectively, rather than it being an advancement board and elitism on playstyle based off of a number instead of the amount of content and fun generated in a theme that can be, on purpose, very shitty to you.

So I apologize if I misunderstood, but please try not to proliferate the idea that veterans are just grumpy people who don't want anyone else to be 'good' at the game so that we can twist things on you whenever we feel like it; we want people to enjoy the same things we've enjoyed, and we want the game to thrive in a very unique experience that can't be found most places, rather than working towards a generic view of a game that can be found pretty frequently.

Apologies if derailed; moderate if needed.

[dunecrawler]

"Some people like it, some people don't, so it's whatever" gets brought up a lot, by both players and staff to dismiss concerns. Sometimes in the shape of "someone is always going to complain". But it's not a good argument.

There are different degrees of dissatisfaction. There's a difference between 5 players liking something and 95 players disliking something, vs. 95 players disliking something and 5 liking something. "Some people like it and some people don't" describes both situations, but it does not make them equivalent and is not a very useful description. It applies to literally any change anyone could ever suggest, whether it's "let's remove all options except for dwarf merchants" or "let's remove this one spell because it's overpowered".

I really like the granularity of the new system, prefer the new categories and like and most things about it, really. I don't like the conversion. I understand the reasoning of "players will be happy if they get points returned in the initial review and have a positive interaction", but I really don't see that working out. If someone takes something away from me for no apparent reason, then returns it after I ask (very politely) to get it back, I'm not grateful and happy to get it back. I'm going to be at least little bit angry that you took it away in the first place and made me do a song and dance to have it returned. The delivery of "this is how it's going to be and we're not changing it" doesn't help, either.

[CirclelessBard]

In previous discussions about karma, staff noted that many 3-karma players in the current system were not playing to the standard that a player with maximum karma would be expected to play at. I would assume that is one of the reasons why they are being cautious with the conversion scale. The read-between-the-lines interpretation is that all 3-karma players would be at-least-6-karma players under the new system, and whether they would be at 6 karma, 10 karma or somewhere in between is pending individual review.

Yes, the conversion undoubtedly sucks for individuals who are all being lumped together for reassessment, and have believed up until this point that they deserve to have max karma, given that up until this point karma has been used as a reward/punishment system. The implication of the previous system is that karma was earned over time, and only removed under the most egregious circumstances. This resulted in a group of players that accumulated karma and didn't play according to the standards expected by staff of their karma level. Under a reward/punishment system, there is no way to look at a mass reduction of karma as anything other than a punishment, because karma reduction was seen as a penultimate resort (with the truly last resort being a game ban). This is unfortunately the corner that the karma system has backed everyone into, after years of being upheld as a reward/punishment system.

This is precisely why karma should stop being used as a reward/punishment system: because in the long term, it only leaves bad vibes like these in its wake. While I still think that complete removal of a karma system and re-imagining of handling access to roles is the best route towards the end goal, I think this overhaul of the karma system comes at a decent second place. Karma being both grantable and reducible in relatively equally easily measure means that it will better reflect what players are actually bringing to the game in terms of quality and fun, rather than seniority. It does require a player base that is willing to self-reflect on their contributions and a staff that is attentive to players' desires and goals.

[Triskelion]

There's a difference between 5 players liking something and 95 players disliking something, vs. 95 players disliking something and 5 liking something.

Is there, though? I'm not convinced.

[Pariah]

There's a difference between 5 players liking something and 95 players disliking something, vs. 95 players disliking something and 5 liking something.

Is there, though? I'm not convinced.

We just arguing to argue now?

[Triskelion]

Read it closely. I was just being funny.

[Pariah]

Read it closely. I was just being funny.

Oh shit!

I withdraw my snark, well played.

[burble]

I read the proposed changes. There are no high karma positions that I want to play so the new scale is unimportant to me. As an oldy, my only advantage is knowing what is FUN to me (not sure how I got 3 karma anyway, I don't check off most of those categories).

Consider this scenario, you get a new player whose personality fits to playing a Templar or mul or something else high karma. It would be a lot of FUN for them, highly motivating. All you need to know about the player is do they play responsibly. Any lore can be TLDR'd quickly, I don't think you need 96 hours here/there.

My suggestion is to focus on opportunities for new players, not gates. Help players find what they enjoy.

As for bad actors, that's a tough problem. I hope retention of new players is a bigger concern.