Seasons Q&A

[Fredd]

I was told to post this here.

So to make the comparison, you're saying a season divided into 3 chapters, each chapter lasting 8-12 months, making the whole season 24-36 months?  In the Jedi game was there a distinction made between the chapters/eras somehow to signify the changeover?

Yes. I played there for a bit, and the game is still very active to this day. This model is proven to work.

They do have distinct breaks in the chapters and chars are wiped without much fuss, because people are there for the plot.

If you want to take a look for inspiration, just google 'Legends of the jedi'

Their game system is way to... Meh for me. Like classic mud quests with rp thrown on top. Not my thing.

[CookieJarvis]

In LOTJ the change in "Era's" usually shifted the game forward by 5-10 years. And new factions/world changes would happen. They'd open up new planets or stations for players to visit and fight over. The timeline currently is soemthing along the lines of...

The Old Republic Faction against the Mandalorian Faction Agaisnt a smaller criminal faction. There were other factions apart of the world but they were minor, meaning for the most part, their change on the world as a whole did not matter too much. Then the next era comes along from what happened with the last era.

The Old Republic BARELY won the war against the Mandalorians, resaulting in the Republic's capital being glassed by an orbital laser cannon, but the republic managed to kill the Mandalorian leadership, which resaulted in the clans splitting apart and the republic ultimately come out on top. (This is still controversioal to this day because really the Mandalorian's won.) Anyway.

The staff in the game genreally give events or pushses in certain directions, but ultimately the players and the choices they make end up deciding the factor at the end of the eras.

As for the Era's themselves: It sorta goes from, early star wars where Tie Fighters and X-wings, or even Star Destroyers were not really a thing yet. The middling Era, where X-Wings and Tie-Fighters and Stormtroopers are a thing. Then the late era, with the Sith Remnants, massive Sith Capital ships and super fighters.

Things do change quite drastically through each era, however they allow people to keep their characters until the end of the timeline where everyone is wiped and the world is started a new slate.

EDIT: But this implies you survive to the end with said character. Most combat characters don't because space fights are deadly and if you don't get to an escape pod on your ship in time you're dead.

[Ourla]

Also hold up...

You know I love you, Yam, but like someone upthread said, let's keep this shizz to Q&A and not turn it into a bitchfest. Go to Discord for that. Our volunteer staff have repeatedly said that they're understaffed and overworked with the size of our game. IMO we're lucky to have someone with Halaster's history and knowledge of the game still willing to be here to support us as players.

We don't even have Nessalin anymore, y'all. Remember that, fellow oldbies.

[betweenford]

Also hold up...

You know I love you, Yam, but like someone upthread said, let's keep this shizz to Q&A and not turn it into a bitchfest. Go to Discord for that. Our volunteer staff have repeatedly said that they're understaffed and overworked with the size of our game. IMO we're lucky to have someone with Halaster's history and knowledge of the game still willing to be here to support us as players.

We don't even have Nessalin anymore, y'all. Remember that, fellow oldbies.

You don't have to constantly be a yes-man for staff Ourla.

It's an honest question. Why is Halaster taking the reins when he's a coder and has stepped down from a producer position only to be a major proponent of game-direction change.

[BadSkeelz]

Also hold up...

You know I love you, Yam, but like someone upthread said, let's keep this shizz to Q&A and not turn it into a bitchfest. Go to Discord for that. Our volunteer staff have repeatedly said that they're understaffed and overworked with the size of our game. IMO we're lucky to have someone with Halaster's history and knowledge of the game still willing to be here to support us as players.

We don't even have Nessalin anymore, y'all. Remember that, fellow oldbies.

You don't have to constantly be a yes-man for staff Ourla.

It's an honest question. Why is Halaster taking the reins when he's a coder and has stepped down from a producer position only to be a major proponent of game-direction change.

Careful, those questions got Yam permabanned.

[betweenford]

Also hold up...

You know I love you, Yam, but like someone upthread said, let's keep this shizz to Q&A and not turn it into a bitchfest. Go to Discord for that. Our volunteer staff have repeatedly said that they're understaffed and overworked with the size of our game. IMO we're lucky to have someone with Halaster's history and knowledge of the game still willing to be here to support us as players.

We don't even have Nessalin anymore, y'all. Remember that, fellow oldbies.

You don't have to constantly be a yes-man for staff Ourla.

It's an honest question. Why is Halaster taking the reins when he's a coder and has stepped down from a producer position only to be a major proponent of game-direction change.

Careful, those questions got Yam permabanned.

If he's actually gotten permabanned and not gotten his post deleted for questioning Halaster that's insane. But I don't see why I should dance around the subject or be careful. What are they going to do, store my character for asking a relevant question?

Ban me? Force store my character? Aren't they already doing that in a month?

[Kavrick]

If he's actually gotten permabanned and not gotten his post deleted for questioning Halaster that's insane. But I don't see why I should dance around the subject or be careful. What are they going to do, store my character for asking a relevant question?

Ban me? Force store my character? Aren't they already doing that in a month?

I saw the original post and it wasn't really heated or insulting? It was a pretty tame and a genuine question as far as I can tell.

[frankjacoby]

First off, thank you staff for all you do, hopefully there is a way (maybe there is) to anonymously donate for server costs etc.

That being said, if the is more of the same where we have to follow x,y,z, I am not sure how many people will be retained.  Chaos is the name of the game, put the scene, let people ruin things, change things etc, forcing them to do what you want is definitely not the way to do it.

[Pariah]

[Jab moderated]

Anyways questions:
I assume that over the years in this new season gameplay we'll probably see some overlap of time periods.

Will it be possible is say you have a character that survives season whatever in the time of whatever and we revisit it that those characters can be unstored for the next time through the same period of time?

To cut down on downtime, can you just recruit builders to build out these new areas and such? I know you do this part time in most cases between crotch goblins and real jobs, crowd sourcing it would be the most efficient.  Once the outrage dies down and we get more folks on better dosages of their pills we'll probably have people interested in helping.

Will you be limiting classes based on the smaller world geography? If wear have 20 people playing in a small chunk we probably shouldn't have 20 witches or 10 d elves for example.

Will post more questions as I have them.

[Kestria]

The producers clearly do not give a fig if their destruction and 'rebuild' plans are not taken by the playerbase, they can get new players, in their mind. This was the decision of 5 or 6 people, not the whole staff, because they didn't even tell their staffing team! Just 'a select few' that would share their vision and would help them try and make everyone see it is a good idea. Even with the majority of their community screaming DON't do it.. they don't care.

Do the producers intend to listen to their playerbase?

[MarshallDFX]

If he's actually gotten permabanned and not gotten his post deleted for questioning Halaster that's insane. But I don't see why I should dance around the subject or be careful. What are they going to do, store my character for asking a relevant question?

Ban me? Force store my character? Aren't they already doing that in a month?

I saw the original post and it wasn't really heated or insulting? It was a pretty tame and a genuine question as far as I can tell.

This was while I was asleep (am investigating), but what I will say is that it's important to make some sort of contribution to the community discussion, and not just nag staff to give you the game codebase or troll.

There is a rule against discussing other people's bans on the forum mostly to prevent it becoming a total drama fest.  So let's leave it there and take it to modmail or request tool.

[MarshallDFX]

Hilariously the mod team are now entirely erasing posts instead of editing them to snip out the bad bits, silencing peoples opinions

Don't treat me as your personal filter please. I am having to do a lot at the moment because as you can imagine this really upsets lots of people (including player mods) and I'm trying to keep things somewhat together. If you want to rail against staff and call them names I'm just going to remove it.

[Master Color]

Personally I think they should just pull the plug.

I was cautiously optimistic about a rework previously. But now? I just can't expect anyone to work under the abuse this community will put out. In fact the thought of it appalls me.

[Diesel]

I play crafters more often than not, how will this change affect custom crafts? If we're jumping around throughout the timeline, will fashions change dramatically? Weapon/armor developments? Will custom craft time limits be shortened or extended?

[MarshallDFX]

My turn my turn!

Lots of feelings. I was convinced it was a joke.

Full disclosure: I only play a little bit. A dabbler and long time observer.

But on the "this isn't a democracy" palaver. I have comments on the manner of engagement

At the end of the day somebody does need to make decisions and stick with it.  Won't please everybody, or even most people, because most people here have survivorship bias.

However the engagement has been a bit: Bombshell --> Measure reaction and Q&A. But Q&A is hard because almost all of the questions won't actually have decisions yet! So I would replace general Q&A with more targeted soliciting of feedback.

Please *do* just be clear about what decisions are already made and then just have a space for people to grieve. Then *also* please be clear what isn't decided and what feedback you are actually looking for and options to consider.

If there are a lot of things not decided, but you also don't want player feedback, I'd say it's too early to engage with the broader community.

For example, just say you have not decided when to close and that you want feedback about the right amount of time, instead of emitting thoughts then when people freak out saying "well it's not decided".  That's the worst of both worlds, because people feel neither consulted nor any wiser.

Now, my primary fear on the whole staff situation

Staff, we will NEED you to make a success of this or it did just hasten the end.  It is going to need empowered people just making decisions with a vision. Halaster, Usiku.. my observation is that  people like and trust you running the game, but if you get frustrated and burnt out in a few weeks and step back this is a very bad outcome.

I hope you have a lot of time, patience and enthusiasm and yes, just rip the bandaid off. If you've decided something, just name the dates and get it done. Save your energy for what you do want feedback on.

And on empowerment, this could happen today of course. Maybe the feeling of wholesale change is necessary to make a new approach. A lot of bureaucracy is to deal with bad staffing experiences.  Far better to make sure you have the right people and absolute confidence in everyone. Be ruthless, trust your gut.  If there are any doubts, a smaller team is better. Then I say let it rip.

With that out of the way, my questions about the plans:

What does removing bureaucracy mean to you?

What technical things are your key objectives ? New protocol support? Get us listed on Mudlet? Removing the brew system? Fixing armour repair? We really need a super newbie area.

I'm getting mixed messages on building and have mostly heard "mostly the same + borders".  For what it's worth, I do think some shrinking of the game world might allow you to keep more variety, but that requires building.  Can you consult on options?

IMO, if we're doing it.. Go big. And by go big I mean go SMALL.   Don't cut babies in half until the only thing we closed is the grey forest.

Edit: I altered my post slightly because I didn't want to imply staff aren't trying to answer questions. It's just that it's not how I'd collect feedback because it feels like there might be answers to be had when it's actually undecided.

[FantasyWriter]

This was the decision of 5 or 6 people, not the whole staff, because they didn't even tell their staffing team!

All speculations aside, what Ketstia said here has been verified by staff, and to me seems to be the worst part of all this. It sounds like the worst method of corporate decision making.

The dictatorship stuff people keep bringing up, however, is silly. It's not a dictatorship, its a privately owned not-for-profit business essentially, and we are all volunteering out time to contribute to the "vision" of it. The game literally belongs to the producers, and that is not something that will likely ever change.  What they want out of the game, at the end of the day, IS the vision of the "business."  Whatever our visions for the future of the game are, they literally don't matter in the end. If you don't like what is being done, take your time else where, or stick around and see how it goes.

No one here is entitled to anything, no matter how much time and tears we have invested. It's -not- our game.  And understanding that, and getting over it, is essential to actually enjoying your time here and reducing your level of disappointment when things do not go your way.

[CirclelessBard]

I am fine with a DM making decisions by fiat for the table, as long as the DM is fine with players walking away from the campaign when they decide they're not comfortable with the decision. That does include how it's made. This is also how collaborative games function. The idea of "ownership" of a collaborative story is frankly a corrupting force to this whole conversation. The staff do indeed decide certain directions. The players decide what to contribute.

This is not to say that I am walking away, personally, but I certainly cannot blame people for doing so if they feel disappointed or disrespected, or that their contribution to the story is being discarded.

[Boggis]

The game literally belongs to the producers, and that is not something that will likely ever change.  What they want out of the game, at the end of the day, IS the vision of the "business."  Whatever our visions for the future of the game are, they literally don't matter in the end. If you don't like what is being done, take your time else where, or stick around and see how it goes.

Absolutely is their game to make the final decision on how to proceed. And I'd commend them to have the guts to try and do something that's necessary but radical for the long-term future of the game knowing that it's not going to go over well with a good number of players. But it's a pretty niche hobby this and sign-posting/communicating this better would have helped. If it was me I'd have put out something along the lines of: "Look we just don't have the numbers to keep things as they are, staff retention is down and we feel like the game is circling the drain. Here's what we're thinking of doing. Let's try and have an adult discussion about it all because at the end of the day we all want to play this game". There'd likely be a 100 different opinions being thrown out by players and maybe some of them could be good / feasible and could get incorporated into the final decision that gets made. That final decision would be theirs of course and not everyone is going to be pleased by it but at least people might have felt a bit more consulted/involved in the whole thing.

[Usiku]

"Look we just don't have the numbers to keep things as they are, staff retention is down and we feel like the game is circling the drain. Here's what we're thinking of doing. Let's try and have an adult discussion about it all because at the end of the day we all want to play this game"

We could have done this. Not only is our hobby niche, but the dynamic and relationship of the community here is extremely unique and it's very difficult to know what the best course of action is in the best interests of the game. But one of the key reasons we didn't approach that conversation directly is because it's a conversation you guys have had a hundred times over already. All your ideas and input on how to improve the game area already all over this GDB and we have read it all already. The idea that we formulated is born of the conversations and ideas that players have already put forward over the last year or two or three and the things that they have expressed they desired or felt would be good for the game. The core asks being: consolidate but also don't get rid of what I love (but it's fine to get rid of what they love), improve player agency, improve interaction.

[FantasyWriter]

I am fine with a DM making decisions by fiat for the table, as long as the DM is fine with players walking away from the campaign when they decide they're not comfortable with the decision. That does include how it's made. This is also how collaborative games function. The idea of "ownership" of a collaborative story is frankly a corrupting force to this whole conversation. The staff do indeed decide certain directions. The players decide what to contribute.

This is not to say that I am walking away, personally, but I certainly cannot blame people for doing so if they feel disappointed or disrespected, or that their contribution to the story is being discarded.

I agree with almost everything you said wholeheartedly except for the ownership being a corrupting force. It's the actual empirical truth of the situation, and accepting that as the truth and not what /we/ feel the game is to us, is essential to the mental health and expectations of the community.  Thinking of it as a bunch of friends who decide to run a campaign together and agree on rules at session 0 or 1, is a false ideal of what Armageddon is. It's one I often share, but its not the truth.

This is why I thought Kestria's comment about it being the decision of a very small group, not even full staff was so important of an observation. I /don't/ want to see the final flush down the drain. Do I think this was the best options, hell no, but again, what I think doesn't really matter. I fear it will be the Tuluki exodus again and again at the end of each season, but I /really/ hope that I am wrong.

[betweenford]

"Look we just don't have the numbers to keep things as they are, staff retention is down and we feel like the game is circling the drain. Here's what we're thinking of doing. Let's try and have an adult discussion about it all because at the end of the day we all want to play this game"

We could have done this. Not only is our hobby niche, but the dynamic and relationship of the community here is extremely unique and it's very difficult to know what the best course of action is in the best interests of the game. But one of the key reasons we didn't approach that conversation directly is because it's a conversation you guys have had a hundred times over already. All your ideas and input on how to improve the game area already all over this GDB and we have read it all already. The idea that we formulated is born of the conversations and ideas that players have already put forward over the last year or two or three and the things that they have expressed they desired or felt would be good for the game. The core asks being: consolidate but also don't get rid of what I love (but it's fine to get rid of what they love), improve player agency, improve interaction.

None of those things require the mud to be episodic nor for every role in the game to be force stored.

Anecdotally, the best way to provide a rich mud experience is to support the people who are there and are investing their time into the game and make their experience come to life, create factors in all areas of play that make the experience more lived in or dynamic, advert the dev cycle of the mud so that way improvements and additions and building is visible to the playerbase, and ensure that the starting area of play is populated or reactive.

Alienating former and current staff, current players, destroying current players' passion projects, and going into PR-Nightmare-Mode don't improve player agency or interaction between players.

[Riev]

I play crafters more often than not, how will this change affect custom crafts? If we're jumping around throughout the timeline, will fashions change dramatically? Weapon/armor developments? Will custom craft time limits be shortened or extended?

Just making sure this is out there because I actually hold this question as well. If you have to wait 3 RL months to make a top tier GMH/Tribe weapon, but you only have ~1 RL year to play your character ... is the expectation to remain that in each "era" we can only really make (1) amazing level weapon? Will there be any tweaks so that amazing weapons are ACTUALLY amazing?

[CirclelessBard]

I am fine with a DM making decisions by fiat for the table, as long as the DM is fine with players walking away from the campaign when they decide they're not comfortable with the decision. That does include how it's made. This is also how collaborative games function. The idea of "ownership" of a collaborative story is frankly a corrupting force to this whole conversation. The staff do indeed decide certain directions. The players decide what to contribute.

This is not to say that I am walking away, personally, but I certainly cannot blame people for doing so if they feel disappointed or disrespected, or that their contribution to the story is being discarded.

I agree with almost everything you said wholeheartedly except for the ownership being a corrupting force. It's the actual empirical truth of the situation, and accepting that as the truth and not what /we/ feel the game is to us, is essential to the mental health and expectations of the community.  Thinking of it as a bunch of friends who decide to run a campaign together and agree on rules at session 0 or 1, is a false ideal of what Armageddon is. It's one I often share, but its not the truth.

This is why I thought Kestria's comment about it being the decision of a very small group, not even full staff was so important of an observation. I /don't/ want to see the final flush down the drain. Do I think this was the best options, hell no, but again, what I think doesn't really matter. I fear it will be the Tuluki exodus again and again at the end of each season, but I /really/ hope that I am wrong.

I just think that arguments along the lines of "Producers own the game, so they can do what they want" are flawed as such arguments point out the obvious without striving for a higher standard. In general, the goal of a leader should be to understand not just that they have power, but when to wield it, and how. Yes, it is true that Producers own the game. No, it is not necessarily true that Producers should use ownership as a justification for change. The justification should come from actual reasoning, not a right to do something.

That said, Producers have made their case that they feel this is the best path forward. They said as much in the initial announcement and in replies to this thread. All we can really do now is see what happens. I will be around to see what happens, but damn if it isn't demoralizing to think about how many people won't be.

I just wish we had less of "this isn't a democracy" talk. When people say things like that, it's usually in the context of being a bully to push change through. As Tywin Lannister roughly said, "If you have to say you are the king, you are not the king." Just make decisions with confidence and show us the reasoning and the data behind those decisions. Tell us how you see the process going and what the full picture of the desired end result looks like. Tell us some pitfalls you anticipated and how you plan to work on avoiding those. But please don't just tell us "I can do this if I want to". We know that already.

[MarshallDFX]

I have moderated out some personal debate.  I want to try and keep this thread to Q&A and feedback and not people arguing with each other. I might need to look again.

Doing my best to be reasonable

[Pariah]

I have moderated out some personal debate.  I want to try and keep this thread to Q&A and feedback and not people arguing with each other. I might need to look again.

Doing my best to be reasonable

Can you remove all the "my feelings" type shit?  It's a q and a thread not a thread to air your grievances or feelings.