Preface
Why am I writing this? Nyr has challenged us as players to support Armageddon, the game we all play and I hope enjoy, by voting to attract new players to the game. The closer the game gets to a critical mass of a player base, the more enjoyable the world should be for everyone. No argument there. However, the turnover of these new players is immensely high. We are bleeding out a vast number of people who do get their foot in the door, which is normally the hardest thing to achieve.
I believe we as players need to challenge staff to start attacking gaps in support for players of various styles and interests, because I believe this is the reason there is a high rate of loss in the first weeks or months of play.
I will discuss what these styles are, show examples of other games that succeeded, or failed, in support of various styles, show examples of how the remaining types are or are not supported in Armageddon, and some examples of how to better support them in the context of the world, and lastly put my challenge to staff on behalf of myself(and I hope others) as a player.
Introduction
Hi, I'm Kryos, a player for a bit more than seven years now, and like many people, I really enjoy the RPI, harsh environment that Armageddon presents for players to participate in. However, after this long stint of playing, I feel like it is about time for me to hash out some of my thoughts about identifying areas where the game could improve, and more importantly, offering example solutions to these problems.
Why does my opinion matter? Since about 1996, I've been deeply involved with MUD games, game design theory, and the academic research of gamers and gaming. This started with a passionate play of AOL era Gemstone III as it transitioned into the www service model. As a youth, my style of play was far more focused, and I broke Gemstone III. Badly. If you're familiar with the game, I was that guy who was level 70 and one shotting level 90 mobs as a wizard. Why? Because I enjoyed the experience of having my in game avatar accomplish great feats and indeed, being involved with the somewhat loosely constructed plot of that particular game. Neither of these enjoyments have changed over time too much, but my understanding of how other people enjoy online gaming has, especially transitioning through the next generation of games: EverQuest, into WoW, and prolific reading on the research that fueled WoWs (immensely successful) design.
I wasn't just playing the games, I was growing in them and in how I played them. By the time I stopped playing WoW, the casual guild on a crappy server I led had defeated pre nerf Vashj, Kel'Thas, and Illidan. Again, if you understand the situation I'm describing you know I played hard, as it were, and got big rewards in both achieving and socializing while doing so. The thrill of leading the 'casual' normal players to such a feat was intense not only for myself, but for them as well, so much so my phone blew right the hell up when we took down the big names with calls from people I played with and led.
I believe the style of gamer Armageddon least supports at this time is actually the my strongest factor in enjoying gaming. Seems odd, I bet, that I'm still here and writing if anything I said above is accurate. However, the secondary style of game enjoyment I have is the one that Armageddon best supports, so bear with me.
Styles of Game Players
For those not familiar with what these styles are, and generally mean, I'll explain on a swift summation here. Socializers, the most supported, are the kinds of players who come in to find social gratification and bonds in the games they play. This means either in the outward, and inward community, or both. They enjoy the forming of bonds and elaboration of relationships both for character and as a player. You might poorly identify these as 'those guys who sit in the bar a lot.' It's a lot more complicated than that, but it is a resulting behavior for some who enjoy S style play.
Next, is Griefer style players. These types of players enjoy elements of competitive play, or PvP. The connotations of PvP are broad here, it doesn't just mean killing your PC and feeling great about it. It could be the style of player who enjoys the adversary, even if that adversary is just taking your things, killing your friends, or spying on you to get dirt on you. Some Griefers do in fact enjoy making the efforts of other players(not just their characters) fail, and that type of behavior can be very destructive. You could poorly identify Griefer style players as 'those guys who always play raiders.'
Next up, Explorers. Again, this is not literal. Explorers enjoy finding out things about the environment they play in, ranging from say, how magick works, what all the crafting recipes are, the branching for various classes, and how mixing odd things together might result, and indeed discovering the world(topography) and its secrets(lore). You could poorly call explorers 'those guys who always play rangers in the middle of nowhere.'
Now, on to Creators, who I claim are poorly supported. Creators find enjoyment in things like constructing systems, making unique items, npc breeding systems, or the like. This could be 'building' staff side, or players trying to drive plot to create new areas, buildings, and items to add to the game they play. You could poorly call them, 'those guys who always submit mastercrafts on merchants/esgs.'
Lastly, and the one I claim is least supported, is the Achiever player. Achiever players find their enjoyment by accomplishing goals in the game environment they participate in. This can be the accumulation of coded ability in order to interact with the world, but usually that is a symptom of wanting to do greater feats, such as being that guy who punched out a mekillot, or led the group of Byn through some harrowing and dangerous contract. You could poorly call them, 'those guys who always play tough guy bynners.'
It is important to note that works by Dr. Bartle, Dr. Yee, and some other contemporaries do vary in their works such as Gamasutra and Mud-Dev II. I'm trying to be a bit more abstract in the explanation in this work in order to allow the broader understanding of behaviors without delving into the difference in nuances. Further, of importance is the understanding that people are not simply purely of one style of play. Typically they blend several behaviors together to create complex models of engagement. As an example, I am most likely an A/S/E style player.
Lastly, regarding styles, I think it is a massive flaw of any serious game administrator, designer, or player to consider other styles of play and enjoyment greater, or lesser than any other style of play and will ultimately significantly cost the game they work for and with. The exception that proves the rule, perhaps being the Griefer style players who target other player's enjoyment directly, rather than containing the behavior to character against character.
Examples of Support in Other Games
As an example to attention to these ideas, you have the development process of World of Warcraft. If you subscribed to the developer logs, such as I did back when they were creating the game, you know the designers were specifically aware of these factors, and designed the game around giving rewards to as many styles of play as they possibly could, thus enticing and satisfying the broadest scope of players they were able. If you didn't know, they succeeded. WoW is the monolith by which all other MMO games have been measured for years and years. Their desire to encapsulate all play styles was wildly successful and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
This isn't different than what the MUD community could benefit from, an RPI could benefit from, and specifically what Armageddon could benefit from. This should be taken with a grain of salt however. As one increases support for varying styles, there is an innate tension between styles that develops.
As an example, in its infancy, WoW Fostered a tension between G style players against S and A style players. That guy who was level 60 camping you in your level 8 zone? He was a G, crushing A and S play. And they wasn't doing this to stop a character in a story from achieving their objectives, they were attacking players and their enjoyment. That's something a game can't allow, and WoW didn't. They took strict measures as they developed to eliminate this possibility.
Their reasoning, however, was a business model. People quitting in frustration at experiencing a toxic(to borrow from RIOT) G player was money they weren't making. For Arm, those with malevolence towards players just aren't of any value to any of the style of players we'll try to recruit, save themselves. I myself believe that some of this G style behavior originates from frustrated styles of other behaviors, that can't find the satisfaction in the games they want to enjoy.
This also leads to examples of other games which had innate support for various kinds of styles, while lacking or handicapping others. Inferno, a pay to play game I subscribed to for some time before coming to Armageddon, highly catered to S, and I think unintentionally A and E players by nature of the implemented mechanics(I broke that game too, if you played it, as Senger). Due to being a game with resurrections and continued play after death, G had a hard time existing there, and C has about as much support as it does in Armageddon.
Gemstone had a basic support of A style play, and some of the early players in the game cultivated a S style community that eventually migrated to Armageddon itself, as well as other RPI style games. These games were likely even created by former players of the old classics.
Gemstone began a slow counter push against A style play, and if you remember players like Greentide(an example of extreme A behavior), they were driven from the game while some sketchy, in my evaluation, measures were taken to enforce more S and C support, and incidentally less G support.
Again, bolstering one style at the cost of others, which caused a very large migration of players away from Gemstone and to other places. Even worse for them, was this was happening as EverQuest, Ultima Online, and other similar games were born or gaining fame. Now, on to the meat of Armageddon itself.
Evaluating Armageddon's Support
In descending order, the support as I see it is S>G>E>C>A. So, Socializer gamers are the most supported, Griefer style players, second most, Explorer right in the middle, and Creators and Achievers hanging at the very distant bottom. While I think there's room for debate how much E or G are supported or might belong in that ordering, for the most part, I evaluate the ends are very far apart, and more important than the close clumping of G/E. Namely, because Creators and Achievers are so very much not supported, they are likely to abandon the game swiftly. That means 40% of the people you attract to Armageddon are immediately going to disengage. And 20% are very likely to after some time spent in the game.
Now, why is it I claim the Socializer style player is so strongly supported? Namely, because most RPI games make the mistake of attempting to attract and cultivate this player over all others, sometimes even to the exclusion of. To an extent, I believe Armageddon has fallen into this behavior. The basis of an RPI is portraying a real person in a simulated world you try to make as 'real' to other players as you can. Which, basically, includes the scope of behaviors that S type players enjoy, building realistic relationships, interacting with the world in a social manner, and working with other players to react to the world.
Further, games that 'promote from within' like RPI's tend to harvest up new staff members that cater to this predominantly S style behavior, creating a self-reinforcing style of gaming preference and a rubric for evaluating more staff, evaluating new players, and creating content to reinforce this style of play. Some times to the exclusion, or detriment of other play styles.
As a measure of proof to this claim, surveys have been conducted on hundreds of players, and showed clearly that the style of play the administrators of a MUD possess is the type of player most attracted to the game itself. One has been conducted by Bartle, and another more recently by one of the sites that gather metrics on MUD games and gamers.
The Styles and the Support, Lack Thereof, and Remedies
Natural Antagonism of Styles
In order to explain about the support and lack thereof of styles, I believe it is important to make the distinction of tension between styles clear. One example would be that of the griefer and the creator. Griefers seek to destroy the accomplishments of others in the game, to further their own or their group's goals. Creators move to add and grow the game and their assets for themselves and their groups. Another such example is Achievers and Socializers: achievers inherently seek the ability accomplish exploits and feats in the game while Socializer players typically do not engage in the behaviors associated with Achiever play, and vice versa. Explorers and Creators are another example; most Creators need the assets, knowledge, and resources of Explorer style players in order to fulfill their ambitions.
Its also important to note that these tensions do not preclude, as in the example I gave in myself, of blended interests such as S/A, E/C, and so on. But it means when both exist strongly without the presence of the other, there's a natural tension between the two.
One might encapsulate this in example by gaming in the way the colors in Magic: The Gathering are purposed. Red and Blue and Black and White are opposed, but by no means is it impossible to successfully blend them into a potent deck combination or even theme.
Socializer
One of the main reasons I believe the Socializer style of play is most supported by Armageddon, is the natural tendency of RPI environments to attract this style of player, of game's tendency to promote from within, and thus create a self reinforcing cycle. This is also shown in the Karma system, by which players are evaluated mostly by standards of Socializer behavior in order to access more powerful, rarer, and more plot capable roles to play in the world as.
Incidentally, there is yet more that could be done to empower Socializer style of play. By affording opportunities for players to set new policies(laws) in their regions, order or administer VNPCs and NPCs, and control the flow of political capital, even more enjoyment could be garnered by Socializer dominant players as they gain in social standing to do so. Incidentally, by expanding in this way, the Socializer is more empowered to make plots for other players, and thus creates more inherent game play for the various other types.
Griefer
As noted earlier, I believe this to be the second most supported style of play. The tagline Murder, Corruption, Betrayal should clearly demonstrate the support of this style of play. The new inclusion of Shadow Artists in Tuluk is an example of a change made that distinctly supports this behavior as well: you now have a pre staff approved venue for griefing behavior in the context of the world. This is a well designed and executed G empowerment example.
Allanak, and 'the wilds' could use a reinforcement for G style behavior. The removal of the Red Fangs from the modern game has removed a lot of the G behavior outlets for the uncivilized and traveled portions of the world, as the currently open tribes rarely venture out of their territories, especially to engage in G behavior.
These could be achieved by pushing, as an example, a new Allanak celf clan that acts as the killing hand of the empowered but not Templar, and institution of a delf clan that ranges in wider areas with explicit,G style behavior in their documentation and goals. I say this specifically as a authorized and documented behavior because while you can indeed create a PC magicker, ranger, or so on that goes about bringing down theft and murder, that pc is one woman or man against the world, and is destined to fail and requires a high amount of turnover with little real G satisfaction of storied involvement.
Explorer
Explorer support in Armageddon is in an interesting state. Namely, this fascinating amount of support rises from the agreement of players to not share OOC information about the nature of the world or onging plotlines with one another. A true stroke of genius in the context of E play, this allows E players to fully flesh out a variety of research and reach for a diversity of lore in Armageddon. Another recent addition that facilitates E behavior is the stowing of items in outdoor locations by means of burying them. It gives both E and A style players something to salivate over.
The drawback to this is players with a very low interest in E activities can become frustrated by the lack of resources available to them to facilitate their style of play, and are reliant on E oriented players to convey information to them. Since the world itself does not cater to the free exchange of information, this means they must consign themselves to environments with natural allies, in other words, Clans. On which there has been discussion in all previous style discussions and are in all following.
However, the main point of contest for E players is that very, very much of the lore of the game is utterly locked away and sealed from them unless they take very specific, very rarely offered roles that are evaluated mostly by S standards as described in that entry.
Creating new avenues of E lore and tactile behavior such as opening more 'dangerous' areas they can explore, alternative means of accessing guarded lore, and expanding on the processes so that they don't eventually become dry (spell casting and item creation) will all help continue to please the E style players. Just as importantly, keeping open roles that allow E players to share their knowledge in the context of the world will empower their enjoyment of the game and let them increase the enjoyment of others.
Creator
The state of creator support is a very poor one. Creator seek to add to the world, and Armageddon's policy of few new additions is inherently opposed to this style of satisfaction. Creators need change as the metric by which they evaluate enjoyment, and change doesn't come often or quickly to Armageddon. They do have processes of creating NPCs, Items, and areas open to them when called for by staff, but this is infrequent enough to be frustrating to this style of player. They do have the ability to create new items for the game, and this is I feel is close to being spot on as a means of support for a C player.
In order to further support C players, one example would be allowing the C players in appropriate clans to commandeer space in those clan's store fronts. They can put their creations on display, to be sold automatically by the NPCs who maintain the space. This allows them to bring their changes to the world directly. Others would be to assign construction to Creater style players for things that degrade or are destroyed with time, and to facilitate that destruction by means of G or A support behaviors (wagons, weapons and armor, and buildings come to mind).
Achiever
Achievers may be the least supported style of play in Armageddon.
In a harsh world with great dangers and challenges, the natural response is to want power either in physical, monetary, or social capital to combat these vast challenges. Both players and characters alike would seek these ends as a means to better their lot in life if possible. And as PCs, we are playing the people in a position to.
Further, those who role up 'combat' characters with the intention of seeking combat often find there isn't much to be had. Even with the open aggression in recent storylines, full on combat between factions is rare, and combat between factions in the same areas of the game is even rarer. These players don't want to run around and simply act like combatants without ever having the chance to engage in combat, as an example of a frustrated Achiever. They don't want to be a Byn sergeant because they were around for a few RL months, they want to be the Sergeant because they murdered the last one, ginsu'd a rampaging threat that killed some other people, or were total bosses on amazing contracts.
However, this style of play receives strict scrutiny in an almost judicial sense, and is harshly monitored.
In order to satisfy this type of player, tangible and challengeable threats need to be a real presence in the game. Be it mantis(or X) hordes with assets(water cache, mineral cache, they captured an asset belonging to someone else) to be contested against, open combat between factions, or other means of engaging in accomplishing feats need to be opened up and endorsed by the game's administration.
The Challenge Itself
The challenge itself is simple: I challenge the staff to hire on at least one new member from each of the varying types of players not of the dominantly represented style of gamer, the Socializer. A Griefer, an Explorer, a Creator, and an Achiever.
With these divergent viewpoints empowered, attack the problem illustrated in this article: that the lack of support and representation for the varying styles of play, of which there is no better or worse, is preventing Armageddon from creating a stable and distinct player base. Either by means of the suggested points of lack of representation and remedies described in previous the previous section, or through newly cultivated ideas. In otherwords, build a diverse think tank.
It should be understood that I believe the game's staff and administration are actively working to better the game, but based on the various pools of psychology research invested into the theory of games just like Armageddon, I believe there is room to meaningfully impact the scale and potency of this effort.
Conclusion
I have spent a few hours of my time to write up this analysis of the state of the game because I care to see it improved. There are no attacks here, but there are criticisms. I am not a disgruntled player, but rather one who enjoys his time and yet sees room for improvement in his hobby.
It is not only the players who must take up the torch to improve the game in meaningful ways, but also the burden of staff to recognize where the weaknesses in our shared world lie, and work to address them in order to improve that shared world.
Opening reinforcement to a variety of play styles, both by expanding the intellectual resources of varying styles into staff, and implementing changes to the game in order to invite and retain these variety of valuable players is the torch game administration must take up while the players take up the torch of working to invite, and entice, new people to enjoy the world of Zalanthas. Its not going to let us catch them all, but it is going to let us catch a lot more.
P.S.
Silly way to spend my Saturday night, but this is an itch I wanted to scratch.
A very interesting set of posts. It'll take some time to fully digest before I'd be able to give my full opinion, but I commend you for your effort to improve the game.
Hey, Kryos, this is a thoughtful post and I appreciate the time it took you to write it. I think it's important to recognize there are different play styles for different people. Armageddon is big enough to support most of them! You say the game seems to to slant kind of heavily toward Social players as you put it, but aren't most of us really a blend of several? I could cite past characters of mine that were primarily any of your categories, it just depends on the role I've been playing and the story I've been trying to tell.
I disagree with some of your assertions, especially that Social players don't engage in the same thing Achiever players do - I consider myself both, at the same time. I've seen primarily social characters achieve pretty amazing things. For the same reason, I don't agree that Achiever characters aren't well supported in the game. There's a long list of "legendary characters" that existed in game who by the very fact that we still remember them years later must have done pretty incredible stuff. Take Lieutenant Paryl, for instance (I only mention him because of the log of his on the other forum, so I hope he's kosher to bring up.) The guy started off as a nobody warrior and ended up just about as close to mini-templar as I've ever seen any commoner get ever. He had the combat skill to crush a mek and was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?
Anyway, if they're hiring new Explorer staff, I demand that person take on the name Dora.
Quote from: ale six on March 02, 2014, 01:05:34 AM
Hey, Kryos, this is a thoughtful post and I appreciate the time it took you to write it. I think it's important to recognize there are different play styles for different people. Armageddon is big enough to support most of them! You say the game seems to to slant kind of heavily toward Social players as you put it, but aren't most of us really a blend of several? I could cite past characters of mine that were primarily any of your categories, it just depends on the role I've been playing and the story I've been trying to tell.
I disagree with some of your assertions, especially that Social players don't engage in the same thing Achiever players do - I consider myself both, at the same time. I've seen primarily social characters achieve pretty amazing things. For the same reason, I don't agree that Achiever characters aren't well supported in the game. There's a long list of "legendary characters" that existed in game who by the very fact that we still remember them years later must have done pretty incredible stuff. Take Lieutenant Paryl, for instance (I only mention him because of the log of his on the other forum, so I hope he's kosher to bring up.) The guy started off as a nobody warrior and ended up just about as close to mini-templar as I've ever seen any commoner get ever. He had the combat skill to crush a mek and was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?
Anyway, if they're hiring new Explorer staff, I demand that person take on the name Dora.
I might not have been clear enough in the original post, but I myself say I am an Achiever/Socializer/Explorer. I used the end of the explanation of styles section to try and drive home the point that people are not exclusive, and often are complex blends of these types. Additionally in the Antagonism of Styles near the end.
However, I do firmly believe Arm's most supported style is Socializer, for the reasons mentioned in the original layout, and that Achievers are poorly supported as one who is strongly A oriented, I often feel great amounts of frustrations at the lack of Achiever play options available to me in the game.
In the context of the modern game, what would someone like Paryl have to Achieve against? What goals and ambitions can he go out and challenge to satisfy his A desires (if he was an strong A player)? Achievers are goal oriented. A players are those who do enjoy seeing coded skill improvements, but more importantly, having a goal to leverage their abilities gained through leveraging against goals, if that makes sense. They want to fight over things, and through having power in the world they earned by fighting over things(not just combat code, either).
Socializer inclined players might indeed be the ones pulling strings to start scraps between factions or people of import, but the Achievers want to go out and be the ones to coded smack down the problem or die trying.
I'm not saying there's 0 support, but I'm saying its likely the least supported, or in contest for such a slot with Creators.
Thanks for writing that up.
I have a few short points to reply with.
- I think we have a good mix of all of those categories on staff right now.
- I do not think the Bartle list would be a good way to analyze new player accounts at this juncture, as I would think that we have very few resources to determine what kind of player someone is. Even if we flat-out asked the player, it may be that their style had plenty to do here and they would have been a poor player. I would rather search for more generic reasons for why someone is playing or why someone is not playing. (This survey stuff will actually be starting next week on a trial basis.)
- The style that you believe is most/least supported is likely influenced by your own experiences and may not necessarily be objectively true for all. In fact, one good or one bad experience (regardless of the experience, because each player has their own definition of good and bad, which is also different from staff's) can enshrine or taint an aspect of anything for you. As you say, you feel achievers are unsupported, yet there is evidence from at least one other player here that this is not the case, so it does seem to be more subjective than objective.
- I'm not sure how much Bartle stuff could or should apply to an RPI, but it's probably worth considering from time to time in very specific cases. I am sure that we do think about the balance of the game itself as well as the focus for the roles that are available, and we have our own goals for building or plotting or what-not.
I can't personally put too much emphasis on Bartle types. What matters most is the story and the roleplaying that backs it all up and makes it a rich experience.
Quote from: ale six on March 02, 2014, 01:05:34 AM
He had the combat skill to crush a mek
This is the basic form of achievement that the game offers... skilling up. It's fun for a while but after you've done it, then what?
Quoteand was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?
This latter part sounds like something that would please a Socializer rather than an Achiever.
There's no doubt Paryl was an illustrious character. Here's a question, however; what lasting mark did he leave on the world? I'm sure he participated in HRPTs and the like in which the whole world changed, but that's not really the same thing. It's just so very difficult to impact the world in small ways, like building a tower, or starting a quarry, or clearing out a section of the 'rinth to become a crop field, or starting a mushroom farm in a cavern below, or even scratching your X in a wall in a way that won't disappear the next reboot. What's more, you'll meet resistance and disapprobation (on the GDB for example) for even suggesting it.
Did Paryl leave one thing behind to show that he personally existed?
I realize very many people here don't care about the things described in the previous paragraphs. Some of them are in the throes of doing their initial exploring of the guilds and subguilds, or of the world, and are currently happy. They'll eventually will want to do something more lasting in game terms though. Others just will never care; the constant fur ball (fighter pilot's term for a multi-plane dogfight) of plotting murder or theft or status changes, which is full of drama but in the end leaves everything exactly as it was when it all started, is just peachy. But the poor "long term" Achiever who wants to build something is going to be frustrated here.
I've taken the various Bartle (and Bartle-esque) quizzes in the past, and usually lean towards an S/A/E/K (or G, in your parlance) profile, depending on the type of character I am playing at the time. It's interesting to see these "standardized" gamer psychologies broken down and and looked at through Armageddon-colored glasses, which is something I always think about whenever I take those tests, but I've obviously never dissected my thoughts into such a detailed and lengthy post. This was an interesting read, even if I don't necessarily agree with you on all points.
I agree with your assessment that the game isn't "friendly" towards Achievers, but that's probably because the game isn't really friendly at all. It is a harsh, permadeath, gritty world, and that's what I love about it. I completely think that you can Achieve things on Armageddon. I have seen many players achieve things in this game, but it usually takes a really long time and is quite a lot of work, and I kinda think that's a good thing.
I'm also not sure how to take your assertion that hostile takeovers and "combat" achiever roles are so heavily discouraged when you posit that the game is also such a friendly environment for a K or G profile. I guess I don't agree with that at all. I mean, the city states are at war right now - this is an excellent time for an Achiever/Killer to get out there and cause a stir. It's extremely easy to kill players and npcs for WHATEVER reason you want in this game, especially given that it's an RPI. Other RPIs I have played are not nearly so lenient/flexible in that regard.
It's also extremely easy to die when you're out there taking chances, making mistakes and getting messy, but it's Armageddon. Isn't that what makes Achievement taste so sweet?
5 years later it's hard to tell almost any character existed. Could you tell with Paryl? Probably not I guess, unless they still tell stories about him in the AoD. But that's what happens when you have a mostly illiterate world populated by PCs who are mostly transient in the setting. The characters, largely, fade away from memory after a while.
But still... in both cities there are taverns, murals, statues, crafted items, etc. - all created by PCs. Isn't that all an achievement of some sort? What sort of achievements are there that aren't possible to accomplish in game - and is that the fault of staff, or are they just really hard to do anyway?
That brings up a thought I've had before...
My happiness would know no bounds if literacy was gradually introduced into some of the higher levels of commoner society in an IC way that didn't feel like a total retcon. It would solve one facet of the (perceived, since it is something I feel, though this thread shows that it is not a black and white thing) problem of there being no character legacy and no way to 'leave a mark,' and thus the original post's point that 'achiever' types are not catered to here, even if it is not a silver bullet for the issue.
That said, I'm not entirely sure how well these classifications fit into a game like Armageddon. Aren't all of my characters basically all of these, whenever they are able to/it suits them/it's convenient?
A very well thought out post, though, and it's certainly a conversation worth having.
Quote from: Nyr on March 02, 2014, 01:39:55 AM
Thanks for writing that up.
I have a few short points to reply with.
- I think we have a good mix of all of those categories on staff right now.
- I do not think the Bartle list would be a good way to analyze new player accounts at this juncture, as I would think that we have very few resources to determine what kind of player someone is. Even if we flat-out asked the player, it may be that their style had plenty to do here and they would have been a poor player. I would rather search for more generic reasons for why someone is playing or why someone is not playing. (This survey stuff will actually be starting next week on a trial basis.)
- The style that you believe is most/least supported is likely influenced by your own experiences and may not necessarily be objectively true for all. In fact, one good or one bad experience (regardless of the experience, because each player has their own definition of good and bad, which is also different from staff's) can enshrine or taint an aspect of anything for you. As you say, you feel achievers are unsupported, yet there is evidence from at least one other player here that this is not the case, so it does seem to be more subjective than objective.
- I'm not sure how much Bartle stuff could or should apply to an RPI, but it's probably worth considering from time to time in very specific cases. I am sure that we do think about the balance of the game itself as well as the focus for the roles that are available, and we have our own goals for building or plotting or what-not.
I can't personally put too much emphasis on Bartle types. What matters most is the story and the roleplaying that backs it all up and makes it a rich experience.
Appreciation for your response too, first and foremost. I'll try to give a coherent response even if its past my bedtime.
Quote from: Nyr on March 02, 2014, 01:39:55 AMI think we have a good mix of all of those categories on staff right now.
This is probably pretty damned true. That self reinforcing model , or the like attracts like theory, is something that's been researched both 20 years ago, and in the modern era of games like Armageddon and still holds its validity. While I'm 100% certain staff has varied styles and enjoyment of play, I suspect a majority of them would strongly affiliate with Socializer behavior. I say strongly suspect because I'm in no position to know or confirm that speculation.
However, I would challenge to acquire those who are very weak in S behaviors, and strong in other forms, as they will give the most divergent an 'self understanding' view points.
Quote from: Nyr on March 02, 2014, 01:39:55 AMI do not think the Bartle list would be a good way to analyze new player accounts at this juncture, as I would think that we have very few resources to determine what kind of player someone is. Even if we flat-out asked the player, it may be that their style had plenty to do here and they would have been a poor player. I would rather search for more generic reasons for why someone is playing or why someone is not playing. (This survey stuff will actually be starting next week on a trial basis.)
Indeed, and often enough, the players themselves really haven't taken the time to understand or grasp what style of engagement they themselves enjoy. If I were to take Bartle's test, or any derivative of it, I could easily game it to produce any result I wanted. I don't think its at all simple to identify the style of player someone is, which is why I suggested the broader strokes of moving towards a universal and cross support. A general survey is more or less the best one can hope for in terms of identifying new players, while veterans(to gaming at large) are likely to be far more aware of their own tendencies.
Quote from: Nyr on March 02, 2014, 01:39:55 AMThe style that you believe is most/least supported is likely influenced by your own experiences and may not necessarily be objectively true for all. In fact, one good or one bad experience (regardless of the experience, because each player has their own definition of good and bad, which is also different from staff's) can enshrine or taint an aspect of anything for you. As you say, you feel achievers are unsupported, yet there is evidence from at least one other player here that this is not the case, so it does seem to be more subjective than objective.
Certainly, and as noted under my explanation of the Explorer type, the agreement between staff and players not to distribute in game information limits my frame of perception. I well understood that before making my post. But I've been around a while and I'm not, generally speaking, a stupid person, especially when it comes to the hobby I've chosen to engage in. I've taken the time to read a lot of work by various psychologists on this topic, evaluate the behaviors of games produced on a massive and meager scale, and to give an honest and open rendition based on the facts I have, or observations I could make.
In other words, its as objective as I can humanly make it, regarding not just my experiences, but the behaviors, experiences, and representation I've seen from other players and staff action as well.
Quote from: Nyr on March 02, 2014, 01:39:55 AMI'm not sure how much Bartle stuff could or should apply to an RPI, but it's probably worth considering from time to time in very specific cases. I am sure that we do think about the balance of the game itself as well as the focus for the roles that are available, and we have our own goals for building or plotting or what-not.
While an RPI game is a specific style of MUD, it is a MUD. This line of research is honed right in on MUD gaming. And while I use Bartle, I did so because he's an easily recognizable name and the 'grandfather' of this line of psychological research, and I know a good deal of the more modern ones, up to and including a contemporary who is researching a topic right along these lines in regards to testing S/G behavior in a controlled gaming environment.
And as a MUD, if these ideas are at all valid, they very much apply to the behaviors seen in Armageddon, or other RPI style games, as they are attracting MUD players. And as mentioned, applications of this kind of modeling was also successful on non-standard MO games such as WoW.
I suppose another way to look at what I'm saying is: if you take time to distinctly support the various styles of player out there, you systemically empower your players to create more story and less staff dependent plots because of the interdependency of various styles to make a complete game experience.
With that, I'm going to pass out. But I'll be about tomorrow to engage in this thread, if its still ongoing.
Thanks for writing this up Kyros. It was informative. However based on my experience as an employer, I don't think that such classification systems work all that well, except in a very general way. I find that most people end up with traits that blend a number of categories. People operate in one way some times, and in another way at other times, often depending on the situation.
On the other hand, I would agree with you that enhancing various styles of play, especially for new players could improve retention. The current Karma system is well designed, but advancing in it takes much time, and much is dependent on the staffers judgments, which like most human judgment's, are often subjective.
At the heart of the matter is the question of the identity of Arm. If Arm is to be what it is billed to be now, a roleplay intensive, player driven plot style of game, without mobs and bosses, it will always have a lot of turnover. That is because this type of play, in a text based game, is just not everyones cup of tea. The number of people who are possibly suited to Arm is most likely a small subset of those who try it out and role up a PC. Efforts at initial retention should be aimed at them.
As you have illustrated with the various styles you mentioned, people play games because they need something. Understanding the needs of the player base and trying to facilitate them, will improve satisfaction and thereby retention. Perhaps the different playing styles you mention need to be revaluated in terms of Arm and it's rather unique identity. It would be an interesting project.
Retention in both the short term and the medium to long term needs to be addressed. I believe that staff are taking steps to improving short term retention. I don't know if any of the other recent changes are directly aimed at medium or long term retention or not. You have some good suggestions and I wonder how they can be framed in terms of Arm and its player base.
I have always found it difficult to use the Bartle gamer types to describe Armageddon players, because as a player my goals change depending on my character's goals. I don't consider myself primarily one sort of player or the other, but I've definitely had characters whose goals were more oriented along the lines of exploring, socialising, achieving, MURDERING, or just keeping alive and keeping out of everybody's way.
I try to roleplay my characters faithfully enough that I the player will go along with their goals even if it isn't what I'd OOCly want to do the most. Because in the end, it's their story I'm trying to tell, not mine.
So to that end, I can't really say whether or not it seems to me like the game is supporting one type of player over another. If anything, as far as roles I have played, I would say that social-only roles have been the most difficult and slowest to get into.
I'd be against adding anything like mobs with important resources to fight over or automated locations to battle over (with the sole exception of border locations for city states to fight over) since that feels a bit too hack-and-slash. I'd hate to see a bunch of indies deciding to go fight Salarr and take over the Obsidian Mine they may have.
Zalanthas isn't really a great place to gain personal glory. Great deeds are generally forgotten or turned into propaganda for one of the City States, and I sort of like it that way. It makes those few times I've managed to overcome the odds and make a lasting mark on the Known feel extremely satisfying. It doesn't feel quite as empty as merely having a maxed out WoW character or getting all of the skillcapes in Runescape.
I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.
I don't really like bringing WoW into a debate in regards to playstyle or quality. WoW is kind of the bottom rung in the ladder of online games, especially RPG games. Armageddon is infinitely better, and more satisfying.
It's interesting you list your own playstyle as the least supported by staff. My experience has not been similar to yours at all, so I have to disagree with that portion almost entirely.
Also, I don't see for a second a 'bleeding of players' at the moment. The numbers are going epic good, average 50 to 60 people, sometimes even 70. Other MUDS and ARPI's I have played would sacrifice their first born son for half that number.
Quote from: Scarecrow on March 02, 2014, 03:59:10 AM
I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.
It's a playstyle being discussed that may or may not apply to any given player or character. The original poster neither meant it as harsh, or targeted. If a player plays in that style sometimes, then discussing how to improve the world for them (the OP's actual intent) will benefit them. If a player was actually just thrust into an adversarial position and isn't prone to that sort of play, then they're not being discussed in that section of his post.
It is admittedly a very long post, and I think you should reread it as you appear to be under some misassumptions as to what he was trying to accomplish with it. He's not attacking any of these playstyles as best I can tell. In fact, the post seems dedicated to improving play for people of /all/ of the listed playstyles.
Quote from: Narf on March 02, 2014, 04:22:14 AM
Quote from: Scarecrow on March 02, 2014, 03:59:10 AM
I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.
It's a playstyle being discussed that may or may not apply to any given player or character. The original poster neither meant it as harsh, or targeted. If a player plays in that style sometimes, then discussing how to improve the world for them (the OP's actual intent) will benefit them. If a player was actually just thrust into an adversarial position and isn't prone to that sort of play, then they're not being discussed in that section of his post.
It is admittedly a very long post, and I think you should reread it as you appear to be under some misassumptions as to what he was trying to accomplish with it. He's not attacking any of these playstyles as best I can tell. In fact, the post seems dedicated to improving play for people of /all/ of the listed playstyles.
Using the word 'Greifer' to describe some people's playstyle does seem hostile, to me. Could have easily used the word "Adversary." On the internet, and internet games on a whole, greifers are people who play only to destroy and damage, without IC intent, just to serve an OOC need to be a nasty person.
First off, <3 Kryos. That was an incredibly long, incredibly well-reasoned, and incredibly fair post, IMO. Not an easy trifecta.
There are a few things that jump out to me. First, I think we might get more mileage, especially for Arm, by talking about play styles rather than player styles. As others have pointed out, these are prone to change from character to character. I don't think that invalidates the types, however. We still have an opportunity to meet all those needs.
Second, I'm not sure I agree about griefers. I'm pretty certain this is actually my least felt desire, but I have a friend who was entangled (and entangled others) in some pretty incredible plots in Arm, even though he was a griefer, because he wasn't a solo griefer. He used social play to make himself more able to put the smack down. I mention it because I have a feeling this person might even be best categorized as a toxic griefer, due to something he told me once, which was something like: "The best thing about permadeath games, like Armageddon, is that if you kill another character, you know that somewhere, on the other side of the world, someone is screaming and putting their fist through their monitor. You can't put a price on that."
Lastly, I see what you mean about A types. Most promotions in the game are handled by staff, and most roles hit a glass ceiling sooner or later. Permanent changes to the game are rare, which makes being immortalized hard. That being said, I am pretty sure I have some strong A tendencies, and yet I keep coming back to this game. I am certain a large part of that goes to my clan staff for when I have been in clans, though. I have always felt they they did a good job doling out enough A to keep me going. But I agree that if it didn't have to be incumbent on them so often, we might have a stronger draw for that play style.
You mentioned the various styles and the focus on them, and conceded that players can be a blend of these styles. I will preface the rest of this post by saying that I think the Bartle Test is suited mostly for single-player games, H&S MUDs and games like WoW. While it CAN apply to RPIs, it doesn't apply cleanly enough for the outright complexity of the game. Most (if not all) players of permadeath RPIs are going to be a somewhat even blend of all the types, because ultimately, they are playing people and people have a natural interest in these activities as well, in their daily lives. To roleplay a different person requires taking all the ways to interact with the world and combine them into your character, likely with different amounts and priorities. A crafter might be A/S/E/K, a noble might be S/A/K/E, a raider might be K/E/A/S, a grebber might be E/S/K/A... but never 100% in any of those areas (unless they're a dwarf :P).
So that leads to players figuring out what they prefer to play, likely through trial & error, and players playing characters who have their preferred archetype first on their list of priorities.
I think support for each of the archetypes is generally pretty high. It could be improved of course, and I think (especially lately) we're seeing roles and situations added to the game that make the game more appealing for different types, which you noted (and there is likely to be more to come that has only been hinted at thus far). I think the nature of the game means that sponsored roles in particular are going to have the highest chance at "achievement" style of play, with clanned people being a close second. But then they are going to be the least likely to be prolific Killers (because of the need for sponsored roles to be accountable), so it sort of balances out.
Quote from: Scarecrow on March 02, 2014, 04:38:20 AM
Quote from: Narf on March 02, 2014, 04:22:14 AM
Quote from: Scarecrow on March 02, 2014, 03:59:10 AM
I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.
It's a playstyle being discussed that may or may not apply to any given player or character. The original poster neither meant it as harsh, or targeted. If a player plays in that style sometimes, then discussing how to improve the world for them (the OP's actual intent) will benefit them. If a player was actually just thrust into an adversarial position and isn't prone to that sort of play, then they're not being discussed in that section of his post.
It is admittedly a very long post, and I think you should reread it as you appear to be under some misassumptions as to what he was trying to accomplish with it. He's not attacking any of these playstyles as best I can tell. In fact, the post seems dedicated to improving play for people of /all/ of the listed playstyles.
Using the word 'Greifer' to describe some people's playstyle does seem hostile, to me. Could have easily used the word "Adversary." On the internet, and internet games on a whole, greifers are people who play only to destroy and damage, without IC intent, just to serve an OOC need to be a nasty person.
These aren't my terms, my assumptions, or my thoughts about how people behave when playing games. They belong to PhD people in psychology, I just happen to think some of what they say, and have proven through study, is very very astute, accurate, and a tool to be wielded. They started with MUDs, ramped up to making WoW on these assumptions, and still validate them today on MUDs alike. Its about multiplayer interaction between *people*. And it's proven effective.
Quote from: Fathi on March 02, 2014, 03:14:12 AM
I have always found it difficult to use the Bartle gamer types to describe Armageddon players, because as a player my goals change depending on my character's goals. I don't consider myself primarily one sort of player or the other, but I've definitely had characters whose goals were more oriented along the lines of exploring, socialising, achieving, MURDERING, or just keeping alive and keeping out of everybody's way.
I try to roleplay my characters faithfully enough that I the player will go along with their goals even if it isn't what I'd OOCly want to do the most. Because in the end, it's their story I'm trying to tell, not mine.
So to that end, I can't really say whether or not it seems to me like the game is supporting one type of player over another. If anything, as far as roles I have played, I would say that social-only roles have been the most difficult and slowest to get into.
No offense intended here, but in personal experience, I've found it frightfully easy to use the types to identify people's style of game play. Some by observing how people behave in the game when I'm playing with them, but even more so based on how people present themselves here, on the GDB. I'll get into this more below.
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 02, 2014, 08:37:42 AM
You mentioned the various styles and the focus on them, and conceded that players can be a blend of these styles. I will preface the rest of this post by saying that I think the Bartle Test is suited mostly for single-player games, H&S MUDs and games like WoW. While it CAN apply to RPIs, it doesn't apply cleanly enough for the outright complexity of the game. Most (if not all) players of permadeath RPIs are going to be a somewhat even blend of all the types, because ultimately, they are playing people and people have a natural interest in these activities as well, in their daily lives. To roleplay a different person requires taking all the ways to interact with the world and combine them into your character, likely with different amounts and priorities. A crafter might be A/S/E/K, a noble might be S/A/K/E, a raider might be K/E/A/S, a grebber might be E/S/K/A... but never 100% in any of those areas (unless they're a dwarf :P).
So that leads to players figuring out what they prefer to play, likely through trial & error, and players playing characters who have their preferred archetype first on their list of priorities.
I think support for each of the archetypes is generally pretty high. It could be improved of course, and I think (especially lately) we're seeing roles and situations added to the game that make the game more appealing for different types, which you noted (and there is likely to be more to come that has only been hinted at thus far). I think the nature of the game means that sponsored roles in particular are going to have the highest chance at "achievement" style of play, with clanned people being a close second. But then they are going to be the least likely to be prolific Killers (because of the need for sponsored roles to be accountable), so it sort of balances out.
As it turns out, blending happens, its recognized(has been for decades), hotly discussed yet today, and yet when you stand back and evaluate someone's behavior of the course of a long term engagement over multiple games, its usually not hard to determine what their primary means of engagement is. Myself as an example, I know I'm a hard A. A lot of my enjoyment comes from A behavior across multiple games (as described in the original post, trying to make that clear). I do have some S and E tendencies as well. I'm very good at gathering data, I enjoy it and observation of systems, I enjoy discovering lore and secrets, and so on, describing my E behavior. I tend to spend time engaging with those I play with in games, the fact I do post time to time on the GDB is a hint at this, but more so, especially when controlling a PC, that PC tends to spend time engaging with other PCs for no stake other than the engaging. That's the S in me coming out. But above all: I'm goal oriented and want to Achieve, that's my driving force.
If people take the time to honestly evaluate their behavior, I think they will find the classifications to encapsulate their gaming behaviors very well. Further, its important to note I gave a summary in context of each of the styles, while pages and pages should be devoted to truly understanding what they are. You need to have your Bartle, Yee, Ted talks on Psychology in Gaming, your modern dissertations from UC Berkly and so on to have a hand on the pulse of what I'm speaking on truly. Yet I see the symptoms here, on the GDB.
A recent example is that thread on public sparring. I think there was some a bit of misunderstanding on why people were speaking as they were in that thread: namely, you're dealing with some frustrated A types. They want to improve their skills, yes, but because they don't have ready options to go out and take risks against goals, or means to try and accomplish impressive things with an impact on the gaming populace, they are pushing for measured improvements for their style of engagement.
People that bemoan the death of the Red Fangs and the lack of threats in the game work, etc, are probably frustrated Griefers, now left with far fewer outlets to finding satisfying engagement. Start looking over threads, and you'll see a lot of suggestions about frustrated styles of play cropping up. They are, by and large, what made me post this in the first place.
Quote from: Eyeball on March 02, 2014, 01:47:42 AM
Quote from: ale six on March 02, 2014, 01:05:34 AM
He had the combat skill to crush a mek
This is the basic form of achievement that the game offers... skilling up. It's fun for a while but after you've done it, then what?
Quoteand was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?
This latter part sounds like something that would please a Socializer rather than an Achiever.
There's no doubt Paryl was an illustrious character. Here's a question, however; what lasting mark did he leave on the world? I'm sure he participated in HRPTs and the like in which the whole world changed, but that's not really the same thing. It's just so very difficult to impact the world in small ways, like building a tower, or starting a quarry, or clearing out a section of the 'rinth to become a crop field, or starting a mushroom farm in a cavern below, or even scratching your X in a wall in a way that won't disappear the next reboot. What's more, you'll meet resistance and disapprobation (on the GDB for example) for even suggesting it.
Did Paryl leave one thing behind to show that he personally existed?
I realize very many people here don't care about the things described in the previous paragraphs. Some of them are in the throes of doing their initial exploring of the guilds and subguilds, or of the world, and are currently happy. They'll eventually will want to do something more lasting in game terms though. Others just will never care; the constant fur ball (fighter pilot's term for a multi-plane dogfight) of plotting murder or theft or status changes, which is full of drama but in the end leaves everything exactly as it was when it all started, is just peachy. But the poor "long term" Achiever who wants to build something is going to be frustrated here.
Eeeeeeeh, someone who gets it. Though I think you're tossing in some C into the A mix, point is, there's symptoms of S in the description of Paryl's awesome, while recognizing an A player wouldn't really care about that kind of social capital. There's some natural synergy in supporting A and C play in that both demand the ability for change in the environment, but for differing reasons.
Quote from: Norcal on March 02, 2014, 03:01:19 AM
Thanks for writing this up Kyros. It was informative. However based on my experience as an employer, I don't think that such classification systems work all that well, except in a very general way. I find that most people end up with traits that blend a number of categories. People operate in one way some times, and in another way at other times, often depending on the situation.
On the other hand, I would agree with you that enhancing various styles of play, especially for new players could improve retention. The current Karma system is well designed, but advancing in it takes much time, and much is dependent on the staffers judgments, which like most human judgment's, are often subjective.
At the heart of the matter is the question of the identity of Arm. If Arm is to be what it is billed to be now, a roleplay intensive, player driven plot style of game, without mobs and bosses, it will always have a lot of turnover. That is because this type of play, in a text based game, is just not everyones cup of tea. The number of people who are possibly suited to Arm is most likely a small subset of those who try it out and role up a PC. Efforts at initial retention should be aimed at them.
As you have illustrated with the various styles you mentioned, people play games because they need something. Understanding the needs of the player base and trying to facilitate them, will improve satisfaction and thereby retention. Perhaps the different playing styles you mention need to be revaluated in terms of Arm and it's rather unique identity. It would be an interesting project.
Retention in both the short term and the medium to long term needs to be addressed. I believe that staff are taking steps to improving short term retention. I don't know if any of the other recent changes are directly aimed at medium or long term retention or not. You have some good suggestions and I wonder how they can be framed in terms of Arm and its player base.
I mentioned the Karma system briefly, but I only hinted at the disparity in it regarding diverse play styles. Namely, because RPI like Armageddon attract people with S enjoyment in gaming, and retain them based on the the limited metrics I have available to me(but by golly, I'm pretty damn confident of this): Karma is evaluated mostly on a S style system. And yet, many karma'd roles offer sweeping amounts of appeasement to play styles that are not primarily S driven.
A mul, for instance, screams A behavior. Its a powered up class that enables A style play on a sweeping scale. The same for a Half Giant. While yes, it has to do with the fact they are codedly powerful options, that's a reasoning, not the reason. A more nuanced understanding is required to recognize that its because they are strong platforms, it allows for a player to make A oriented goals while using these characters and attempt them with greater probability of success.
I do not often play magickers, and have limited experience only in terms of proximity to them and snippets from this very forum, but from what I've seen, there are very clear distinctions of satisfying various types by nature of the powers given to these kinds of magick users. I've played a few, and I could flop down immediately who they satisfy by virtue of their granted abilities that I've seen, but that's not something to do here.
A psion, though, is for my very limited understanding, a powerful S and G style draw.
The point is, the karma system is evaluated mostly by S behavior, but contains options of enjoyment very much non S style play would find satisfying. Would it be easy to tweak? Crap no, it wouldn't. Does it have some imperfections, yes it does. But I do *not* want to turn this thread into a 'change the Karma system' thread. I want to keep it honed in on the fact there's gap in support for the various play styles, we see the symptoms of these gaps in player communication here and in their behaviors in game, and that while we grind on bringing in new bodies, I hope the staff should grind on acknowledging these gaps and working to shore them up instead into strengths. And that in so doing, we take the lack of new player retention and smash it to the ground, ending up with a vast and diverse player base.
I've had more time to review this.
QuoteWhile I'm 100% certain staff has varied styles and enjoyment of play, I suspect a majority of them would strongly affiliate with Socializer behavior. I say strongly suspect because I'm in no position to know or confirm that speculation.
However, I would challenge to acquire those who are very weak in S behaviors, and strong in other forms, as they will give the most divergent an 'self understanding' view points.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this up and express your thoughts on this, as it promotes discussion about the game and how others might view it. However, fair warning: we are not going to change our staffing model to acquire new staff members based on their Bartle type--not the 4-piece older Bartle type and not the 8-piece newer Bartle type. There are many things that make up the job of a staffer. If anything, a personality test might be more useful than a gamer-mentality test.
QuoteWhile an RPI game is a specific style of MUD, it is a MUD. This line of research is honed right in on MUD gaming. And while I use Bartle, I did so because he's an easily recognizable name and the 'grandfather' of this line of psychological research, and I know a good deal of the more modern ones, up to and including a contemporary who is researching a topic right along these lines in regards to testing S/G behavior in a controlled gaming environment.
I took some time to read up on Bartle stuff and then also on Yee stuff. Yes, an RPI game is a specific style of MUD but the majority--and I mean the vast majority, probably upwards of 90%--of MUDs have quest systems and other automated activities like the other games you have mentioned (WoW, Gemstone, etc). There are other players there. I recently tried out the Elder Scrolls Online Beta and spent a mediocre portion of time working with a group of people I played with.
These kinds of games truly do not require interaction with other people in order for the game to be rewarding. Now, it can be more rewarding with other people, but that's beside the point. Bartle focuses on that, those kinds of games. In 1996 there were (arguably) only a handful of RPIs. In 1996 I believe even Armageddon was a place where halflings and elves sat down at the same bar to talk to each other, so it's not like there's a long and rich history of high-quality RPI goodness. RPIs continue to be the minority in MUD gaming. I doubt very strongly that Bartle was analyzing the finer points of games with intensive roleplay as a focus.
As a counterpoint to this quest-style setup and level-based system that Bartle more than likely was analyzing, Armageddon thrives on the interaction between players. Based on what we've seen so far with new players, the interaction that new players have with existing players seems to be the thing that retains a new player...not appealing to Bartle types. We'll continue to explore that if it is needed, but the research you're drawing on here is related to non RPIs and "roleplaying" games in a broad sense (in that "you, the player, act as another character, and we call that roleplaying"). I wouldn't hold Bartle types up like they are the end-all, be-all for game development. It is an interesting theory laid out, but it is a theory, and after reading more on this, I think it barely applies to an RPI.
There is more to gaming and game development than one person's theories. While you have mentioned other works, you have focused almost entirely on Bartle here, whose work focuses on MUDs. Not RPIs, but MUDs as a whole. That is such a broad brush to paint with! Even then, you are focused on 5 player types, which is not the original Bartle stuff nor the new Bartle stuff. Bartle had 4 types originally (Killer, Achiever, Socializer, Explorer) and eventually expanded this to 8 types (Griefer, Networker, Politician, Friend, Opportunist, Scientist, Planner, Hacker). Your chosen five are a mix of those and one of those chosen is not even a Bartle type (Creator). Additionally, the way that you promote "Socializing" here implies or outright states that you feel that Arm and Arm's staff heavily rewards or favors Socializing behavior over other areas. In actuality, we don't care how well someone interacts with other people, we care how they engage in roleplay with the gameworld in mind. This might look like a semantic issue on the surface, but look at it this way: if you're killing someone with roleplay and attention to the gameworld and its culture and background in mind, we value that far more than you just deciding to be a buddy with another person in-game for whatever reason. Even the karma system does not reward players for talking to each other and being IC buds. We simply don't care how good you are at making friends or socializing in-game; we care about your ability to grasp roleplay.
I reviewed Dr. Yee's stuff, which has other ideas (http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/motivations.pdf) on it, though again, his focus is on MMORPGs. Not text-based RPIs, but MMORPGs. Even so, he finds issues with Bartle types and finds many limitations there. I actually sort of prefer Yee's layout here as it applies more easily to a game like Armageddon. He's got things broken out into 3 main categories (Achievement, Social, and Immersion). In "Immersion" there is a subcategory for Roleplay, which describes precisely the kind of player we hope to see:
Quote from: Dr. Nick YeeRole-Playing: Players who score high on Role-Playing enjoy being immersed in a story through
the eyes of a character that they designed. These players typically take time to read or understand
the back-story of the world as well as taking time to create a history and story for their
characters. Also, they enjoy role-playing their characters as a way of integrating their character
into the larger ongoing story of the world.
Honestly, I think Yee's work provokes more of an intriguing read related to Armageddon than Bartle tests (which Bartle didn't develop) that place people into specific categories (that Bartle did develop). His main takeaways are exactly what has been pointed out a few times here:
Quote from: Dr. Nick Yee
People don't fit in boxes.
Motivations do not suppress each other.
If our game is an RPI--focused on roleplaying and an overall story and the stories of our characters--it stands to reason that no, we are not going to fit into a box. If our goal is to be an RPI, I think we should enrich the whole game with that focus--the focus on roleplay--not with undue attention to a system that may not necessarily apply to this kind of game.
I've taken some tests and I'm a Killer type, or, I guess you could say Griefer. In order to pursue my goals, however, it is important to adopt the traits of the other playstyles, considering I tend to be forced to be solo on non RP enforced muds. If you were able to observe my actions, you might think killer/griefer my least likely preference, but there's a flipside to every coin, I don't enjoy killing or griefing the first thing I come across... I enjoy killing the killers. I'm still new to the game, so being part of a large mob still appeals to me, but when I get my shit together, well, expect a change.
I'm a fan of finding an optimal build, but I am not so much a fan of winning with it. I like knowing secrets because they give me an advantage when the shit goes down. I socialize because being able to gather others when there is a need for a real smackdown is invaluable. I venture into all possible aspects because they suit my drive to be self-reliant. I like to win by any means necessary. I lose often, but my end goal is always to win. I like to win in less expected ways, in street fighter games I always pick Dan, if he's available. I'm the worst type of griefer. I don't just want to beat you, I want to beat you so badly you cry. This is who I am and what I play.
And who do I want to beat? Not just anyone, but the guy who thinks he has everything under control, the rest I'd rather make friends with. Fight the power, what I do, who I am. My prey are those who play the same game I do, I like a fair fight, or one balanced in the favor of my opponent, so I can beat them under circumstances which validate my own sense of worth through unconventional means.
For the purpose of being constructive and in being unwilling to debate semantics and details, I'm going to list examples and suggestions of ideas, many of which have been suggested before, if only because it'll illustrate the state the game is in and the way it could be improved for certain kinds of players.
Note: I'm going to substitute the term griefer with killer, as it's a slightly less offensive term. Griefer carries connotations of actively wanting to ruin people's enjoyment, whereas I feel the archetype in general is more one of competition between people. An even better term would be sportsman or competitor, but that'd mess up the one-letter acronyms.
1) Ways to improve the game for Killers:
- Mdesc-concealing items have both been praised and reviled, but their removal is very much an example of favoring a S playstyle over that of the killers. It is more difficult to make life hard on those despite superiority in terms of code or skill when your identity and your target's social contacts can render your advantages moot.
- Active engagement by militias: despite Allanak and Tuluk being in a state of war, there is very little actual fighting going on. I realise Armageddon is no fps, that is, if one side manages to get a crew of powerful soldiers up and running the other side cannot go and respawn with equally skilled folk, but the ability to go out and do battle with the other side in any way is still something in support of the K playstyle.
- Loosening the crimcode: to quote Quirk, our current crimcode is a bug, not a feature, and yet again favors S players, and to a lesser extent the more pacifist C, over people with a K/A playstyle. You could make it so that certain crimes committed in seedier areas go unpunished, implement a system where every crime is not met by extreme force, or make it possible to bribe NPC's.
- As has been stated in this thread already, the current clans able to raid people are rather restricted in what they do. The ability to be more free in picking your battles would be right up a K playstyle's alley.
- On a less coded and more cultural level, I think it'd be good if Zalanthas being a bad place were portrayed a bit better. Part of the reason why rape got banned was the ridiculous shitstorm an accusation can whip up ICly, I've seen people act in enormously indignified manners over getting jostled about in seedy bars, and issues like theft and outdoors murder seem to be treated with real-world hands more often than not, too. Playing the K way would be a tad easier if it didn't get met with extreme responses so often.
2) Ways to improve the game for Explorers
- In the most basic manner, adding hidden things to the game is what pleases people looking to uncover secrets. More content = more ability to find content.
- Going on from that, facilitating the coded ways to go about this could be improved. One of my characters died because he fell of a cliff, when looking in the direction I was headed would not make clear he'd fall. Physical exploration is discouraged when characters are lost so easily. I'm not saying it needs to be made easier, I'm saying that factors such as chance and knowledge of game mechanics should be less important in doing so.
- Literacy needs some serious love. I played the one GMH family member, and even then I needed to explicitly ask staff if there was anything at all for me to read because the estate had nothing at all in there. The first response was that it did, only it still didn't, and then they'd look into it, because apparently this was confusing to staff as well. I can only speak for this one example, but if this happens to even a character whose literacy is legal, which goes for about 2-3% of our playerbase, I really think some expansion isn't a bad thing.
- Though this affects more than simply E players, the adding of easy to get to information in the gameworld and simple clues would add more to the E playstyle than detract from it. For all anyone knows, there are a dozen artifacts, secrets, ruins, villages, peoples and horrors lurking out in the world, but due to the combination of permadeath and OOC silence, many of these are effectively invisible. Adding pointers, clues, and little pieces of the puzzle to get plots started rather than give the conclusion away would be a very good thing.
3) Manners to improve the game for creators
- Our crafting system is esoteric to a ridiculous degree. Mastercrafts can go lost to eternity because people would need to combine highly unintuitive items to create their final products. Adding ways to increase the manner in which recipes can be rooted out by people with craft skills, clan access and/or proper tools should be increased to a much greater level.
- To add to that, ease up mastercrafting. I played an IRE mud a while ago, and though I think they're collectively awful, their crafting systems, money sinks or not, are a godsend. People can send in designs, a specially-appointed crafting admin reviews the designs, they are approved or rejected accordingly. I realise that their items will have less of an effect on the world than they will in Armageddon, but this is largely the case with anything in there, and the delay on mastercrafts is so blatantly OOCly enormous that I can imagine that C players are turned off by the thought of it immensely.
- Counterintuitive as it might seem, making things less permanent would be good for a Creator. I have not once, not on me or other characters, seen a weapon break, which is a ridiculous achievement when you consider that real-life metal weapons break so frequently it's not even funny. This carries over to more aspects of the game: things such as tents, buildings, statues, clothes, or in other words anything at all are so durable that there is no real need to create, as everything is eternal. To create a demand for creation by not letting the gameworld be so static would in turn allow those so inclined to supply the game with creation.
- To go on with the above statement, allow people to make more things, seeing as they'll not be permanent anyway. We've all read the archetypical exampled of people wanting to build huts and lairs and shit, and all of this being bad for various reasons. Be that as it may, removing permanence from certain aspects of the game will make such ideas less destructive. If you could build, say, a hole in a cliff to hide in, with the added drawback that you'd need to repair it every X amount of days with Y resourced at the cost of it falling apart, being a creator player would be easier.
- This has been mentioned often, but there is very little leeway for those people wanting to start their own tribes, families, or even clans in general. You can tell me that all our clans were player-started all you want, but fact remains that I cannot start up my own desert elf tribe no matter how hard I try, nor can I create a family of painters that won't die out the moment a spider shows up. Yes, this allows for people who are acquaintances to buddy up and break the game and yes, this might open up a possibility to grief, but the fact remains that there is going to be a ton of concepts that are completely unplayable because nobody can unleash their creative potential outside the constraints of the current constructs we have.
4) Manners to improve the game for Achievers
- This one has been mentioned before, but a lot of goals just depend on dumb luck and the passing of time. Becoming a Sergeant scarcely if ever involves holding off the gith horde for your unit to escape, or racking up ten large for clearing out that spider nest, the process instead boiling down to 'if sarge dies and you've been around you're sarge nao.' I'd elaborate, but this is going to be a long post already, so for now let it suffice to say that 'sticking around' is something no A player is going to feel good about.
- Even in achieving things, people can stay obscure. This lieutenant Paryl is an example, as I have not once heard of him before, despite him being a possibly very succesful man, and a good character to boot. Change that shit up. Literacy being restricted makes this difficult, but that doesn't mean it needs to stay this way. Allanak and Tuluk alike have a great wealth of statues depicting people who I'm sure have stories attached to them. I, meanwhile, am unable to name any of these figures, nor their achievements. The same goes for say street names. The discuss command with NPC's is sorely underused in this regard, as it is all you need to record someone's legacy: add NPC's in non-obscure places who are clearly meant to be discussed with in order to find out about such things, and you'll have a much livelier world with people remembering their history much better.
- In a similar vein, boards are underused. Tuluk has musea and an entire goddamn city quarter devoted to culture, but there is not a board detailing history and the exploits of the famous, and this is a missed opportunity indeed. All you'd need is a place called a museum, or a vnpc templar lecturing the masses on the deeds of the great, and you could have a board detailing things that are now only to be found somewhere amongst original submissions that are far too verbose, wordy, and scattered for anyone to reasonably wade through.
- Make it less frustrating for people to work towards things. Yes, Armageddon is multiplayer, and no, things needn't be easy. But if I want to train my combat skills, armorcrafting, or even backstab by myself, I'm gonna be SOL. The same goes for anyone unable/unwilling to find a complete PC crew for their operation, someone who can't find a tutor to become a great magicker, or learn how to properly polish gems. This is a clear way of an S way to have fun (heavy interaction) infringing on A fun (having the tools to accomplish goals.) You could add sparring NPC's to clans, increase the frequency of skill bumps through RP, and generally just allow people to accomplish more through themselves. Time not spent with others is not necessarily time wasted.
Also, before this devolves into a wild, tangential argument over why I'm wrong because example X and Y might be wrong, please look at the bigger picture I'm illustrating rather than trying to refute my entire point based on minor examples: there are ways we could improve the game, and they needn't all be focused on socialising and constant interaction.
Quote from: Nyr on March 02, 2014, 05:32:19 PM
I took some time to read up on Bartle stuff and then also on Yee stuff. Yes, an RPI game is a specific style of MUD but the majority--and I mean the vast majority, probably upwards of 90%--of MUDs have quest systems and other automated activities like the other games you have mentioned (WoW, Gemstone, etc). There are other players there. I recently tried out the Elder Scrolls Online Beta and spent a mediocre portion of time working with a group of people I played with. These kinds of games truly do not require interaction with other people in order for the game to be rewarding. Now, it can be more rewarding with other people, but that's beside the point. Bartle focuses on that, those kinds of games. In 1996 there were (arguably) only a handful of RPIs. In 1996 I believe even Armageddon was a place where halflings and elves sat down at the same bar to talk to each other, so it's not like there's a long and rich history of high-quality RPI goodness. RPIs continue to be the minority in MUD gaming. I doubt very strongly that Bartle was analyzing the finer points of games with intensive roleplay as a focus.
As a counterpoint to this quest-style setup and level-based system that Bartle more than likely was analyzing, Armageddon thrives on the interaction between players. Based on what we've seen so far with new players, the interaction that new players have with existing players seems to be the thing that retains a new player...not appealing to Bartle types. We'll continue to explore that if it is needed, but the research you're drawing on here is related to non RPIs and "roleplaying" games in a broad sense (in that "you, the player, act as another character, and we call that roleplaying"). I wouldn't hold Bartle types up like they are the end-all, be-all for game development. It is an interesting theory laid out, but it is a theory, and after reading more on this, I think it barely applies to an RPI.
These two paragraphs illustrate exactly how Armageddon is primarily focused on what we could dub an S kind of behavior. I'm going to requote you, since you bolded your key statement already.
QuoteThese kinds of games truly do not require interaction with other people in order for the game to be rewarding.
What you're saying here is that Armageddon is a game which
requires interaction with other people in order to be rewarding.. Which in turn illustrates S behavior perfectly. People who just want to craft, or reach the end of the world, or rack up the 'high score' that is being on the history page
cannot get even remotely close to what they want to do without heavy interaction. This isn't a flaw per se, but we shouldn't deny that anyone who isn't too fond of constant and weightful interaction is going to have a hard time in Arm, and this needn't be the case.
I'm also gonna requote this.
QuoteAs a counterpoint to this quest-style setup and level-based system that Bartle more than likely was analyzing, Armageddon thrives on the interaction between players.
This is no counterpoint, it's proof. Saying Arm thrives on interaction between players is directly saying playstyle S is what it's best suited to. And again, this isn't really a bad thing, and I enjoy Armageddon for a great deal, but fact remains that there are many ways in which we could improve the game for those unable/unwilling to constantly and mandatorily come into contact with other PC's to do everything at all.
Damn, Patuk, I had an extreme dislike of you until just now.
Interaction != socializing.
If I've got your character in a position that he or she can't get out of and I'm about to kill you, we might well be talking, but I'm about to kill you--and not for the social aspects of it. I'm about to kill you because I'm roleplaying a character that is in a position where he or she is a "killer" (again, if we must use Bartle types to discuss an RPI).
There's no need for constant and weightful "interaction" of that sort in order to enjoy this game; you can get by with a decent amount of it, I think. However, at the same time, if you're playing an RPI to explicitly not interact with other players (whether that interaction be murdering them permanently, taking their stuff, manipulating them, or even just talking with them...etc...) you may as well play a single-player game.
I still think it'd be better to view this game through the lens of roleplay and storytelling rather than the lens of "I took an internet test, therefore these changes should be made." We can make improvements and we discuss those regularly, but Bartle categories seems to me to be a pretty flimsy standard for this game. I pointed out Yee, who had pretty strong points against the Bartle categorizations.
Again, my gratitude for taking the time to continue the dialogue.
What are These People Doing?
The researchers in the field of psychology who are analyzing player behaviors are attempting to do what most of the field of psychology is: creating models to describe behavior. This by its nature means there's always going to be disagreement, and more importantly, flaws in the model that lead to inaccurate descriptions. Researchers have taken exception at the limitations found in Bartle's analysis, Yee is one such person. But further, yet more have taken exception to Yee's model and have made yet further distinctions or changes in an attempt to create a reasonable descriptor of player behaviors. Dr. Briggs is an example of that, and touches more on the notion that I am drawing, and as suggested in a following section, that the style of admin play attracts and more importantly retains the style of gamer that plays. She also expands on Yee's ideas of gender roles in gaming. More recent work also confirms this type of behavior.
A lot of Yee's trouble lies in that he aggregates the types into broader scopes without actually doing a redefining of the behaviors, but that's more an academic debate than it is valid to the discussion of hoping to improve player retention and enjoyment in Armageddon. He also develops his models by having users input information about themselves, rather than observing users absent their own personal bias. Regardless, models are, by definition, flawed. That's the pitfall of the field one has to reconcile with. However, the strive to ever increasing accuracy is a joy of the field.
Further, you do indeed have the issue with Massively Multiplayer games drawing a great deal of attention from contemporary researchers, as the volume of users in the console and MMO era we live in is dramatically increased from the era of MUD dominance for multiplayer online games when MUDS and RPIs were born.
However, the point remains that games who recognize the validity and importance of these models are immense successful. And other games, who either haven't or refused to, seem to stumble and falter. And finally, that while researchers have developed models that disagree with the nuance or even some of the macro classification of players, all agree that there are classifications of player behaviors, and they are distinct from one another, and that these distinct styles can overlap and combine.
Bartle to Yee, Yee to Briggs, Briggs to Contemporaries
One of the things I find most curious about Yee's work, is the takes a lot of the factors that Bartle uses to describe his styles, and assigns them as subattributes of three overarching factors (at least in the piece you've linked). However, there are some extreme gaps in the context of other research, especially in the why.
In regards to the Achievement Component he describes, he describes behaviors these players engage in, but falls flat on incorporating the why they do these things. Curiously, he also summarizes Griefing behavior as a subcomponent of the Achievement Component in competition, and that has been described by others as a large oversight. Further, he seems to misappropriate some sub components, such as linking customization in Immersion instead of Social, as other research seems to indicate are very closely related behaviors.
The Competitive, or Griefing has a diverse platform by which it is accomplished, and can be tied to the Social or Immersement Components in his own work easily. Lothian's work is focused on this point almost exclusively. Some of Briggs' work touches on this motivation as to why, and if the topic interests anyone reading this, she also goes into gender roles in gaming another worthwhile topics.
But the main thrust of this is: Yee is not the end point chronologically or developmentally of models of gamers, but there's some cohesion in his claims with nearly all other work that remains a point of interest: divergent styles of gaming.
You are Attracting Yourself
By and large, how I interpret the main thrust of your response is, We (I) value a certain style of gamer, and seek to attract that style of gamer to this particular game. If that's an inaccurate interpretation, please correct it.
As posted initially, I am in 100% agreement that this is the state that Armageddon is mostly in. Modern research supports this claim. However, my contention is that attracting and the natural inclination to attract and support only those like one's self causes a distinct point of failure in creating a robust game and player base.
Now to clarify, I do believe any player that will be valuable to the world of Armageddon needs to be able to interface with the world and immerse into it, by role playing. However the scope of how this is accomplished is vast, and hardly limited to the metrics of what is described as S, or social player behavior described in the previous post.
Unfortunately, the rubric for what a good player seems to be constructed on this Social style of behavior. Again, the distinction here is we are talking about the players, not the characters they play.
Staff expects the player to, outside of their character, always have very strong Social Components in the context of Yee's work, while maintaining the the Immersion sub component of Role Playing. However, what Armageddon is supporting in a limited or substandard measure, according to my own analysis, is most of the Achievement Component, and misplaced or not, some of the Immersion Components.
And the point of this is, as like is attracting like which we've ended up agreeing on, player retention is below the desired amount. If player retention is below the desired amount, changes should be considered to bring it to a point of desirability.
What We Do Not Seem to Agree On
Is in summation: that players who are not strong Social or alternate Components or Subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game. The RPI element is naturally, also going to draw in the Role Playing sub component of immersion. And the ability to do this is required, and enjoyment of it will greatly improve enjoyment of the game.
By the way Armageddon is described, a harsh world where fighting for survival is the order of the day, with the tagline Murder Corruption, and Betrayal, the game is by and large going to attract the sorts of players with some inclination towards what Yee describes as the Achievement Component and others create distinctions between. It reads as the perfect platform to entice them.
However, upon arriving, these players are going to find, even if they are fantastic Role Playing subcomponent types of players, that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well, or scrutinized to the point they lose interest in participating. The numbers on who is playing the game also supports that either this, or another issue is driving off these other types of players, while Socializer players are retained.
We also know turnover is high due to your own reporting. Its a given that some of these players aren't the kind of gamer the game would want to retain anyway, as they may not interface well with the RPI environment. However, you have said yourself that you do not condone nor appreciate at the least some of the Sub Components of Achiever style play, but I can't recall off hand any specific commentary on the Explorer, Creator or Immersion(other sub points) by Yee styles.
With an apparent lack of regard for at least one of the three styles of Yee's distributions, I worry about this not allowing Armageddon to grow and prosper, and by necessity remaining in an evolving state. This is without acknowledging the behaviors Yee and Bartle seem to skip over, who can constitute another meaningful percentage of a game's population.
Other links for interested people(note I'm not saying I agree with everything they say, but I am saying they are out there):
[1] http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1
I think I linked this one before, but, its just an example of divergent viewpoints on the nuance of motivations, yet showing the diversity and breadth of them.
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20000818064001/http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi
Interestingly enough, EQ seems to sample towards strong S too, but not as strong as Armageddon at the time.
[2.1]MUD name Count Ac So Kl Ex
Armageddon 13 31 67 41 58
Note: I'm having trouble grabbing up Brigg's work off hand immediately, which is unfortunate.
The OP really rang a bell for me. As an explorer/achiever-type player, I have to say that I agree with what I think was the general point of this thread.
From the Achiever and explorer in me:
I do feel like there is too much restraint of knowledge. There are so many things that are lost, either because discovery requires staff to dole it out on a whim or for their own purpose/direction, or because the player has to know the answer to the question before his or her character can even ask it. Also, how book/scroll-type items work need a serious overhaul. I remember playing a merchant house Agent and asking staff if I could pay the scribes of the house to copy a book for me thinking it could just be replicated by a staff command, only to find out that the only way a book can be copied is to be rewritten through the text editor page by page). Also, the fact that a whole page has to be written at once makes them more frustrating and expensive (you can't just jot down notes on a page and add more later, once you start writing on a page, you have to put everything you want on that page in one sitting. Making books creatable in the same or similar way that biography entries are done while out of game would be extremely helpful. They are extremely difficult (OOCly) and expensive to create in game, especially when balanced around the ease at which and entire store of knowledge can be destroyed. Hearing a few years ago that a PC had done this, no matter how good the IC reason behind it was, left me sick to my stomach and I still cringe when I think about it.
And aside from the dozen or so literate characters in game at any given time who can be handed a book (either one that was kept safe by staff somewhere or created by them) exactly what are the odds of stumbling onto some kind of previously unknown or long-lost knowledge? How many save rooms are out there that haven't been visited/looted in the past two or three years? How many secret crypts or tombs are left to be discovered. Once you get to a certain level of knowledge in the game, it feels like there is nothing to "achieve" without making characters with specific pursuits of knowledge in mind before creation, and one can play only so many dwarves. ;)
More and more player consolidation also seems to prefer the Social type. Areas of the game are lost to players, either for IC reasons (Undertuluk, Mal Krian, etc) or OOC reasons (can't think of any that are appropriate to discuss on the public forums, sorry), and don't get me started on places that use to be be save/quit rooms and were either destroyed or lost their save/quit status. But like literature, destroying or closing off rooms/zones is much easier than ICly and OOCly creating them. Thankfully, and to my pleasant surprises, a couple years ago, I was able to be a part of a plot to actually -add- a quit room to the game, and a -lot- of in-character work and time went into the effort, when five words and an agreeable staff team was all it took to destroy the one that had been there in the past. Aside from the difficulty, it -feels- to -me- that there is a drive to push players into smaller areas for consolidation's sake, and while that is FANTASTIC for players of social characters who like to bar-sit, spar, gossip, politic and mudsex, it's not so great for players who want to get out and stumble across something new and exciting, discover the ruins of an Empire of Man village, learn a previously unknown way to manipulate an element, or rediscover the Ghatti. I feel like it is a shame that all of the work the builders did for Reborn isn't trickling into the game, or even that sort of talent being dedicated to Armageddon MUD. I am not, nor have ever been on staff, but from a player's perspective, I really can't see a downside to bringing on a couple or three builders to add discoverable content to the game world (other than not wanting discoverable content added to the game world).
As a bump, the work in link 1 shows an interesting relationship between what I say is supported (S/E) which is working with the people in the world and its static nature, and the A/G which is interaction with physical properties of the world (arm is, as FW says, shrinking and does not often change) and its changing/volatile nature. I think its food for thought on further nudging what I'm after here.
Quote from: Kryos on March 02, 2014, 09:01:32 PMModels are, by definition, flawed.
Exactly.
QuoteHowever, the point remains that games who recognize the validity and importance of these models are immense successful. And other games, who either haven't or refused to, seem to stumble and falter.
Are we stumbling or faltering? We've increased new player retention by at least 50% this year and possibly over 100% depending on what metrics you use.
QuoteBy and large, how I interpret the main thrust of your response is, We (I) value a certain style of gamer, and seek to attract that style of gamer to this particular game. If that's an inaccurate interpretation, please correct it.
Yes, roleplayers.
QuoteAs posted initially, I am in 100% agreement that this is the state that Armageddon is mostly in. Modern research supports this claim. However, my contention is that attracting and the natural inclination to attract and support only those like one's self causes a distinct point of failure in creating a robust game and player base.
We're not that interested in attracting non-roleplayers to the game.
QuoteAnd the point of this is, as like is attracting like which we've ended up agreeing on, player retention is below the desired amount. If player retention is below the desired amount, changes should be considered to bring it to a point of desirability.
The rate at which we retain new players is up at least 50% from last year; depending in which metrics you use, it is higher than that. I would say that is a desired amount.
QuoteHowever, upon arriving, these players are going to find, even if they are fantastic Role Playing subcomponent types of players, that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well,
Again, in your opinion.
Quoteor scrutinized to the point they lose interest in participating.
Again, in your opinion.
QuoteThe numbers on who is playing the game also supports that either this, or another issue is driving off these other types of players, while Socializer players are retained.
Our overall playerbase numbers are increasing rather than decreasing. You're also guessing.
QuoteWe also know turnover is high due to your own reporting. Its a given that some of these players aren't the kind of gamer the game would want to retain anyway, as they may not interface well with the RPI environment.
Again, you're referring to new player turnover, not overall player turnover. What we know is that a varying percentage of new players each month do not even log into the game each month after creating an account. No amount of Bartle analysis will change that; they have not even attempted to play the game. We also know that another sizable percentage stops playing between almost no time at all and a few hours. As analyzed, those players likely also have not spent enough time in the game to actually know what Bartle types are rewarded here. One area to analyze before analyzing Bartle types would be to make sure that the player is actually logging into a place where they are able to see other PCs and roleplay with them in some fashion (even if it is to try and kill them or be killed).
QuoteHowever, you have said yourself that you do not condone nor appreciate at the least some of the Sub Components of Achiever style play, but I can't recall off hand any specific commentary on the Explorer, Creator or Immersion(other sub points) by Yee styles.
What have I said that I don't condone or appreciate, in context?
QuoteWith an apparent lack of regard for at least one of the three styles of Yee's distributions, I worry about this not allowing Armageddon to grow and prosper, and by necessity remaining in an evolving state. This is without acknowledging the behaviors Yee and Bartle seem to skip over, who can constitute another meaningful percentage of a game's population.
No need to worry, we have improved new player retention quite a bit.
I think the karma system allows for more types than you might think, if we are saying that all Bartle types can be good roleplayers as well (which I think is true). People can be Killers, Achievers and Explorers and still fit these points:
Longevity: Suited to Socializers who generally will play characters that are the least in-danger. But you can only earn one point from this.
Good communication: Not really limited to the type of player, since this has to do with requests and being nice on the GDB.
Ability to roleplay: Regardless of what type of player you are, you are able to go with that type and stick to a role.
Proven understanding of magick and its place in the game world: Explorers who seek information through IC means, or Achievers who actually play magickers and learn this firsthand.
Proven understanding of cultural and racial structures: Pretty much every type can fit this, especially Socializers (demonstrating knowledge and ability to fit into societal norms) and Killers (who might emphasize racism and xenophobia in the harshest possible ways).
Contributes to the game: Achievers clearly have the edge here, since they have the most drive to mastercraft items, create new songs, stories, and areas, and so on.
Leadership: Leadership and achievement goes hand-in-hand, although Killers, Explorers and Socializers lead in their own ways.
Additionally, the karma system unlocks a very discrete set of new opportunities for the player, and isn't the be-all and end-all of how a player is judged by the staff. While I imagine a player's karma is considered for sponsored roles, or anything else special that staff might grant to players, specific experiences the player had in past roles, as well as their general demeanor toward staff and other players, is far more important in order to be accepted.
So while I can see the merit of your argument and definitely think the game can be (and is consistently) improved for the better (by both staff and other players), and there have been some great suggestions in this very thread, I just don't buy the idea that the way players are judged is strictly Socializer focused.
I found Patuk's list helpful to this discussion. Some points I agreed with, some I agreed with but thought were unfeasible, and some I disagreed with strongly. But it's good to put this debate into more practical terms of what we wish would be possible /easier and isn't, rather than arguing over subjective statements like "Armageddon does not support achievement oriented players."
So, Kryos and others, what sort of "A-player" activities would you like to do that you perceive the game doesn't support? Scanning this thread, I've already seen:
- It's difficult for characters to leave a lasting mark on the game or be remembered after they're gone,
- It's difficult to find easy ways to improve some skills for some sorts of characters (i.e. indies don't have places to spar, shady types don't have safe places to train)
- Promotions in clans in game are often based on longevity instead of achievement
What things have I left off my list?
Switching to numbers mode.
http://mudstats.com/World/ArmageddonMUD
This is a fantastic tool for non staff of a game to view the general behaviors of players in MUD style games and MMOs to the degree that the site supports. Arm, since winter 2013 has increased its average player connected by 1. That's not a dramatic growth (though the change over from 2012 to 2013 is staggering). Since 2009, the bump was about 5 average players in, and, the trend shows a stabilization for that number(as it did back in 2009 before a sharp dip, then resurgence).
That stabilization suggests for the last year experienced players are turning out nearly at the rate to the amount of newer players that stay. That 50% increase in new player retention must then be met by a commensurate amount of existing player loss. So this isn't my opinion. I'm not guessing. Its numbers.
That's what has me worried.
Out of numbers mode.
As for models, models are flawed, but massive multi-million dollar businesses use these flawed, but accurate enough, models to improve their performances sharply. Flawed is far from useless. Even flawed, these tools are powerful.
As for attracting non role players, I never said otherwise. Even went to qualify several times in my two larger posts that as a prerequisite, but to also say role playing is not contained just to S type behaviors for players. Again, not characters, players. That's what I'm drumming on.
Longevity can be for the account, not just the character. Play the game for long enough, you get a karma point, whether it's with one pc or 50.
Fantasywriter - I hate books too. The way they work now sucks. I've thrown tantrums over this before. Like when a book gets eaten by a crash and is gone forever. Coders have been working on this, but you know, it's complicated. We have an ass-old code base that doesn't do everything we want it too. But books are one of the many things on our wish list for code that we'd like overhauled.
Quote from: Adhira on March 02, 2014, 10:28:00 PM
Fantasywriter - I hate books too. The way they work now sucks. I've thrown tantrums over this before. Like when a book gets eaten by a crash and is gone forever. Coders have been working on this, but you know, it's complicated. We have an ass-old code base that doesn't do everything we want it too. But books are one of the many things on our wish list for code that we'd like overhauled.
[offtopic]
I -think- I still have a bunch of copies of some books in text files from when I played (a sponsored role that had access to books and read them all). If you want me to dig them up and send them to you let me know.
Armageddon's certainly more permissive of S-types than other RPIs that I've played. And I've played a few - for five years before I started playing Armageddon, too, actually. Funnily enough, there are massive differences between my typical sort of character elsewhere, and my typical sort of character on Armageddon. Elsewhere, I have played predominantly combatants, for one thing. Armageddon feels like it liberates me from that to a considerable degree, since I don't get the sense that I'm missing out on quite so much interesting stuff that's going on by playing skill-less non-combatants. I've never enjoyed just going raising skills; they're a means to an end, at best, and I'll still sometimes spend a couple days to a week raising skills like crazy on Arm till they're where I feel they make the PC feasible, then, er, don't actually ever put them to practical use most of the time.
I'm more than a bit of an E-type, too. Finding out stuff about the world and the intricacies of stories is cool. I do sometimes wish that more about the world was preserved and accessible IC - without resorting to asking your local templarate or putting in a request to staff, at least. The same goes for long-gone PCs, though with Armageddon's character turnover rate being as it is, I'm just not sure how that could be made workable.
And I like making things. Not mastercrafting style stuff, really, but more "Hey, this would be a great thing for PCs to go interact with somehow", followed by me sort of fudging in a reason my character really wants to do it. Armageddon's world is somewhat immutable compared to those of the other RPIs I've played. Which is nice in a sense, since it means that a PC concept I have now will probably still be feasible a year from now. On the other hand, for those wishing to enact some sort of tangible change, it can be tricky.
I think the most restrictive thing about Armageddon is that the immutability of the gameworld means that you have to improvise like crazy to get certain pretty mundane PC types to make any sort of sense, never mind big wacky schemes. The thing that always gets me the most is that while my characters' vNPC families, and most of the vNPCs in the world, live in hovels or shacks or tenements or even perhaps a room in a proper house somewhere, my PCs are either consigned to living in a dormitory, whether public or clanned, or to having an apartment. It's stuff like that, where there's a big disconnect between what should be totally feasible for a character, and what's actually there as far as ginka is concerned. Other stuff like a larger variety of jobs in the vein of clay-digging and cotton-picking might be good, at least in Allanak. Some clans that aren't noble or merchant houses, maybe - just regular commoners hiring for whatever, since the majority of the population of the city states isn't working for a House. Inn rooms or something similar that people could rent was brought up in another thread, and makes sense, too. But I'm going way away from the original subject here.
Interaction is the key to retaining new players. It's as simple as that. The Bartle stuff, if it has any bearing at all, isn't going to enter strongly into the equation on day 0. The new player is already gone before he has a chance to discover there's no epic level boss raids or vast troves of written lore.
As I see it, these are the three issues that impact the amount of interaction a new player can expect to find on day 0:
1: Lack of players. There isn't much anyone can do about off-peak being off-peak, but even at peak, locations can lack players. Without players, the new guy doesn't have anyone to foster interaction and bring him into the storylines. Worse, it makes the game look un-played, and that's just a terrible first impression to make.
Solutions: Concentrate the existing player base, or at very least advise players to start their new character in a location that has a high density of players. This isn't always Allanak; sometimes Allanak is the ghost town.
2: Nobody needs newbros. In a game like Eve, the new player is the lifeblood of a corporation. The new player can immediately begin participating in a meaningful way.
In Armageddon, new characters are jokes, and stay that way for around 60 hours of play, or much longer for certain classes (*stares balefully at pickpocket*). A day 30 ranger doesn't need help from a day 0 ranger, for anything. A Byn unit stands a much better chance of surviving and completing their contracts if they leave the day 0s at home. A day 0 crafter can't craft anything reliably or to his profit, and the stuff crafters make tends to be useless vendor trash regardless -- nothing an actual PC would want or need -- until the crafter has played 25 to 40 hours.
For reference, the typical modern console game is designed around 10 to 30 hours of gameplay total. By the time our new player could have beaten Bowser and rescued the princess, he's still fumbling around and pathetically incompetent compared to his longer lived Armageddon peers. The only reason for Mister Day 30 to entertain the company of the day 0 is for metagaming social reasons and future potential of the character.
If instead the new character, and the new player, were actually worth anything in comparison to longer lived characters, then there would be more incentive to interact. It could be to the coded advantage of long lived players to hang out in bars where new players are likely to pop, because they need the fresh meat in order to accomplish their goals.
A solution could be changing the code to allow for meaningful assists in various situations. Let's say it's completely impossible to skin a Mekillot alone. You need three other players to help out, at least. All of the sudden, the solo hunter who can take down a mek needs a crew. Or, let's say even a mastercrafter has a decent chance of failure when spam crafting chests for profit -- unless he has an apprentice PC or two helping out. Or there could be time consuming components the mastercrafter needs that the new player can reliably provide. Maybe important spells are so expensive that they require mana donations (or concentration donations, even) from other magickers to be castable: like it's not feasibly possible to be both flying and invisible, unless you have a different elementalist concentrating on maintaining one enchantment or the other.
The power curve could be flattened with assists as well. Maybe my day 0 crafter can't make anything useful on his own, but with help from three of his fellow day 0 friends, he can. Or, five day 1 warriors working together are able to defeat a day 20 warrior.
3: Confusion! Strides have been made in the documentation and availability of assistance. I still see new players entering that need hand-holding -- and don't know what the Talk command does or how to emote or that there's the spiffy new directions command (and even if they used the spiffy new directions command, they might not have an idea of why certain locations are important.) Without the basics, interaction isn't possible in the first place.
The walkthrough is pretty good, but it is a little hard to find, and for an experienced MUD player who is new to Armageddon, the important stuff is buried under crap they already know. I'd set the Quickstart, the What You Know documentation, and the various pages of the walkthough as a blink tag enabled side bar on the front page, because it's the stuff you most want new players to read.
Also, it wouldn't be terrible to have some documentation aimed specifically at players who are coming from the most popular MUDs. Like a page describing the specific differences between Arm and Aardwolf or Arm and the Achaea family of games.
Quote from: Adhira on March 02, 2014, 10:28:00 PM
Fantasywriter - I hate books too. The way they work now sucks. I've thrown tantrums over this before. Like when a book gets eaten by a crash and is gone forever. Coders have been working on this, but you know, it's complicated. We have an ass-old code base that doesn't do everything we want it too. But books are one of the many things on our wish list for code that we'd like overhauled.
This actually is probably pretty easy. I'm betting that by using the same sort of link that exists between player bios and the website account, you could link books in that same vein. Obviously, the code would be different, but basically, I'd see it as being the book with a flag that links it to http/book/blahblah/page1.htm and spits that out ig. Maybe even do it in a PDF, which comes with page annotations. Then staff would have the book forever on their side, and could always dupe it again.
In your inventory:
a small grey book
>staff_make book html.staff/books/house_tor_7.pdf
A small grey book is now linked to house_tor_7.pdf.
You'd think so... but it's not that simple. It is however on the project list for coders. ;)
I find playing a memorable and engaging character leaves a mark, if not in the IC gameworld, but with the other players. There are still PC's I remember, from back when I started playing, who I will always remember for stuff they did, how they acted, and what went on. That in itself is an achievement, an achievement of enriching the experience for everyone who plays.
Quote from: Kryos on March 02, 2014, 10:12:26 PM
Switching to numbers mode.
http://mudstats.com/World/ArmageddonMUD
This is a fantastic tool for non staff of a game to view the general behaviors of players in MUD style games and MMOs to the degree that the site supports. Arm, since winter 2013 has increased its average player connected by 1.
This is a fantastic tool to the degree that it functions, I agree with that. However, please do note that it seems to be missing (whether from our end or from its end) chunks of data which may well affect its own calculations.
However, I think you mean spring 2013, not winter 2013. Do you mean Arm, from spring 2013 to winter 2014 (apparently that is referring to the 2013/2014 winter quarter) has increased its average players connected by 1? Yes, looking solely at those two numbers and comparing them to nothing else, that number has increased by 1. Without more information, that would be tough to nail down any more solidly than that, however. What makes up a quarter? When does it start and when does it end?
This is actually somewhat important for determining any statistics. If winter 2014 = January/February/March, then we are missing key data for March for the average of the past three months. If winter 2014 = December/January/February, it is more accurate, and then we're comparing a period of the highest growth we've ever had in terms of new player accounts (March/April/May of 2013) to a relatively low period otherwise (December 2013/January 2014/February 2014) where we have fewer new accounts and fewer players logging in (a normal occurrence for that time of year it seems, but moreso recently)...and we still have one more "average" player than that. That's right, even comparing a high period to a low period, the low period was higher. I don't think that's a bad thing, that points towards a good thing.
QuoteThat's not a dramatic growth
No, it's not. It's also a look at averages over the course of 13 weeks of play. There is only one dramatic change in average player numbers on that whole chart; all of the rest are very slight in comparison. When I referred to dramatic growth earlier, I was referring to dramatic growth of retained new player accounts as recorded by Armageddon's database, not dramatic growth of average players logged in as recorded by Mudstats.
QuoteSince 2009, the bump was about 5 average players in, and, the trend shows a stabilization for that number(as it did back in 2009 before a sharp dip, then resurgence).
There are 3 years of data missing from the chart. I don't think you can really call that a trend. Here's what is in the chart:
Spring 2009 --> Summer 2009 = positive (+3 "average" players per season)
Summer 2009 --> Fall 2009 = negative (-4 "average" players per season)
Fall 2009 --> Winter 2009 = positive (+3 "average" players per season)
no data
Spring 2012 --> Summer 2012 = flat (but starting at -3 "average" players per season compared to 3 years previous)
Summer 2012 --> Fall 2012 = negative (-3 "average" players per season)
Fall 2012 --> Winter 2013 = negative (-1 "average" players per season)
Winter 2013 --> Spring 2013 = positive (+11 "average" players per season)
Spring 2013 --> Summer 2013 = positive (+1 "average" players per season)
Summer 2013 --> Fall 2013 = negative (-2 "average" players per season)
Fall 2013 --> Winter 2014 = positive (+2 "average" players per season)
QuoteThat stabilization suggests for the last year experienced players are turning out nearly at the rate to the amount of newer players that stay.
It doesn't necessarily suggest that. It suggests
averages for the season with no regard for actual events, RPTs, or any plans. For instance, we do not have a game that runs 24/7 with the expectation that RPTs are happening 24/7; we do not really have automated quests, etc, so the "average" amount is less important in that regard. RPT means recommended playing time, after all, so we do (as a matter of course) recommend that players (new, old, etc) play during these times so as to be involved in whatever event may be going on (or to disrupt it, as the case may be). It also suggests these averages with no regard for player changes. It is a common enough thing that veteran players stop playing for legitimate real life circumstances and we as staff (and as fellow players) should understand that. It doesn't take into account holidays, nor does it adjust seasonally for that upwards or downwards. It doesn't cover players that stop playing for reasons like disagreements with staff, bans, etc.
All of these things are as likely as your assessment, and my best guess is that the average just isn't as important for a game that revolves around player interaction. How active the game is at any given time of day? That's important to know. The average over the course of an entire day is not important to someone that is not logging in over the course of the entire day.
QuoteThat 50% increase in new player retention must then be met by a commensurate amount of existing player loss. So this isn't my opinion. I'm not guessing. Its numbers.
You're taking numbers and you're offering an analysis based on those numbers, but you don't actually know for a fact how many old unique accounts stopped playing at this time or that time (nor do you know why), so yes...it is your opinion. I've offered mine above, and perhaps one day when we have better staff tools for analyzing veteran retention, we'll delve into that and get into analyzing that data (that would be useful to do). Right now I'm limited to Where Survey data from the database that I have access to, and I only have 5 or 6 years of it. I'm not afraid of data that paints a bad picture, but I am afraid of making too broad of an assumption from too little third-party data.
QuoteThat's what has me worried.
I don't think there is much cause for worry here, though these stats will be useful in other ways as the game continues onward.
Quote
As for models, models are flawed, but massive multi-million dollar businesses use these flawed, but accurate enough, models to improve their performances sharply. Flawed is far from useless. Even flawed, these tools are powerful.
And my point is that without these tools, we've increased new player retention greatly with very little effort involved apart from a player focus on voting (admittedly the new website helped but that WAS a lot of effort). My second point--maybe as important?--is that we can't handle growth much more dramatic than the growth we currently have and the growth we are currently experiencing. Looking at Bartle types and player ideas for what they enjoy doing is important--as Adhira and Rahnevyn have pointed out, this brings up good stuff we can work on to improve regardless of one's view on the theory in question, and those things can be implemented over time, with staff and player involvement. Doing more to find out how to retain the higher end of the non-retained new players is important to review. Doing more to retain veterans is important to review as well.
Looking at Bartle types as though it is the only thing that will save us is a bit much. That's my other big point. We're
not a multi-million dollar business. We're not even a dollar business, or even a business at all. This is a hobby--a complicated one, a pretty nerdy one, but it is a hobby. We are running a free game with volunteer staff and that game has a certain focus as an RPI. There are always going to be areas of improvement (just like there are always going to be posts every month or so about the current issue affecting someone in some area of the game), but those areas of improvement happen slowly in the grand scheme of things. Even when new things go in, it can often seem to implementors that the new functionality is forgotten or too easily discarded in favor of a desire for more. (For instance...hey, explorers: go bury something. Or dig it up!)
I'm not going to argue over the numbers and how exactly they should be looked at concerning averages and logins, but I do wish to point out that Arm has probably attracted a good deal of players due to Atonement and Parallel RPI being gone. With the average increases/decreases in player amounts being as low as they seem to be, something as insignificant as five people jumping ship from these MUDs to ours would skew the statistics you're both presenting immensely.
Anyway.
When the OP posts statements such as these:
QuoteWhat We Do Not Seem to Agree On
Is in summation: that players who are not strong Social or alternate Components or Subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game. The RPI element is naturally, also going to draw in the Role Playing sub component of immersion. And the ability to do this is required, and enjoyment of it will greatly improve enjoyment of the game.
QuoteNow to clarify, I do believe any player that will be valuable to the world of Armageddon needs to be able to interface with the world and immerse into it, by role playing. However the scope of how this is accomplished is vast, and hardly limited to the metrics of what is described as S, or social player behavior described in the previous post.
And the general scope of the reply is this:
QuoteWe're not that interested in attracting non-roleplayers to the game.
QuoteAgain, in your opinion.
You're coming off as more condescending than I think is warranted in what is a very civil thread. Though Kryos has stated multiple times that he does not think people unwilling to RP have no place in the game, quotes such as these end up coming across as 'not gonna read what you're saying' and 'you're wrong because opinion.'
We can argue over numbers and player models and whether or not they exactly apply and whether or not we're going to need the hard facts or whether or not opinions suffice for improving the game or not, or we can actually try to be constructive. A post such as Rahnevyn's-
QuoteI found Patuk's list helpful to this discussion. Some points I agreed with, some I agreed with but thought were unfeasible, and some I disagreed with strongly. But it's good to put this debate into more practical terms of what we wish would be possible /easier and isn't, rather than arguing over subjective statements like "Armageddon does not support achievement oriented players."
So, Kryos and others, what sort of "A-player" activities would you like to do that you perceive the game doesn't support? Scanning this thread, I've already seen:
- It's difficult for characters to leave a lasting mark on the game or be remembered after they're gone,
- It's difficult to find easy ways to improve some skills for some sorts of characters (i.e. indies don't have places to spar, shady types don't have safe places to train)
- Promotions in clans in game are often based on longevity instead of achievement
What things have I left off my list?
-much better than being dismissive over minor points of someone's statement. Instead of continuing to state that the game is growing at a good rate, that the various playstyle types do not represent the game well, that some kinds of players are apparently unsuited to Armageddon, you can instead go to the core of the issue:
Are there ways to broaden the ways one may have fun in Armageddon and ensure that as few people as possible feel left out in trying to play the game?I feel a question like the above one, however it might be phrased, is much better a thing to discuss than spreadsheets of numbers and names of psychologists describing gaming theory just so and so.
The core issue as Patuk presents it:
QuoteAre there ways to broaden the ways one may have fun in Armageddon and ensure that as few people as possible feel left out in trying to play the game?
I have played games that catered to as many types as possible, trying not to leave anyone out. It is
because they were so broad and unfocused, that I came to Armageddon. If Armageddon tried to branch out and attract more types of people, I'd probably leave. The more diverse you become, the less of an RPI you are. RPIs are a niche market in a niche market. They exist, because they attract only a very few types of roleplayers. If they are attracting more types, then there is something about them that is making them no longer RPIs.
Bartle's useful, sort of. But his categories don't really apply to Arm players. The usefulness is in getting people to think about the types of interests that our playerbase has, with regards to playing Armageddon.
There are code-junkies, tavern-sitters, mudsexers (a subset of tavernsitters), adventurers/explorers, world-achievers, purists (some of whom are ex-MUSHers), PKers (a subset of code-junkies), and hybrids who borrow from all types.
World-achievers are the ones that make the biggest impact on Arm. They're the ones who borrow from all types, as hybrids, but do so in a way that gets others involved in a positive way to make changes to the world. Ysania's Way was named after a world-achiever. The Silver Ginka exists because of a world-achiever, as does House Terash (Pearl Terash). The fact that people know that gwoshis and Tan Muark have *something weird* between them is the result of a world-achiever (Veddi). Red's Retreat was rebuilt in honor of a world-achiever (Samos the Red). If I recall correctly, the gate separating the public area from the House-restricted area of Luir's Outpost is named for a world-achiever (Sarjax), as are all the gates of the Outpost.
Code junkies made master crafts, but no one remembers who they were, and most people wouldn't be able to tell a single story of lore about how a particular master craft came to exist. PKers are known more OOCly than ICly. Players remember the Red Fangs, but you wouldn't be able to hear much, if anything, about the members of the Red Fangs in game anymore. The same with mudsexers and tavern sitters. Players will remember them for a few months after they disappear, but otherwise - they might not have existed at all. Their existence was nothing more than background atmospheric effect.
Yes, the game caters more toward the world-achievers. But the world-achievers provide the most usefulness to the game. It's a symbiotic relationship. The more YOU provide to the game, the more likely you are to have an impact on it. If you are primarily focused on being a code-junky, you might end up providing a few new silk gowns, or maybe help build a new wagon for the Tan Muark. But in a few months, no one's going to care that it was your character who made it, and in a year, no one will remember, ICly, even if a dozen people remember OOCly.
If you want to be a world-achiever, then you have to take Bartle's list, and combine them and bring THAT into the game.
I should note for transparency: I'm a world-achiever type, although there isn't anything in the game that any of my characters are remembered for, as far as I know. But, I feel that this "type" is the type that would enjoy Arm the most, out of any other type. Because their focus on one thing over another not only varies from PC to PC, but also never varies by a significant amount.
Even when I'm frustrated and pissed off and feel like ranting on the GDB, I play. I might store, or piss off someone else enough to get my PC killed, or accidentally pause just two extra seconds after seeing a carru instead of setting the mount to run and getting away. And then my next app is submitted usually within a couple of hours.
I get more out of the game, because I put so many aspects of "me" into it. If I was only into the skill grind to see what's at the end of the skills list and what can they do, then the game would be over when I mastered the list. If I was only into the mudsex or tavern sitting, I'd probably bore everyone else, to the extent that eventually I would no longer have someone to mudsex -with- or talk -to- at the bar, and game would be over. If all I wanted to do was adventure and explore, I'd have left the game long ago. I already know most of the game world and its nooks and crannies. There isn't much else geographically that I haven't seen, or that I feel I'm missing out on.
But a little of everything - wanting to grind skills - I enjoy that to some extent. I actually like the grind, because the end result is a popped up skill, or a new doodad that I can make, more sids I can earn, more people I can find to buy stuff from me - the whole merchanting thing. Plus, knowing I can now kill a gortok in 2 hits is always a kick to me. It's like christmas. I can milk that even if I'm punching out bahamets with a single fist. The "yeah yeah, I knocked out a bahamet. But did you see that gortok fall? That was so awesome!" thing.
If ALL I wanted was politics and the social game, I'd be bored to tears most of the time and you couldn't pay me enough to play in certain roles, certain locations. That is probably THE most restrictive RP in the game.
But combine them all, give me something codedly to do, people to interact with, politics to manipulate, plotlines to either get involved with or hear about ICly so my character can have an opinion on them, gortoks to slash, silk gowns to make, new persepctive of places I (the player) have already seen with different characters - and you have a player who is really loving Arm, and getting tons of entertainment out of it.
Quote from: Patuk on March 03, 2014, 06:58:45 AM
You're coming off as more condescending than I think is warranted in what is a very civil thread. Though Kryos has stated multiple times that he does not think people unwilling to RP have no place in the game, quotes such as these end up coming across as 'not gonna read what you're saying' and 'you're wrong because opinion.'
I read what Kryos was saying. I disagreed with it and said as much. Kryos has a very specific set of opinions about what he thinks staff's view on the game is--rather than asking what that is, he is telling us all what he thinks it is. I think it's important to point out when someone is laying something out as objective fact when it is a personal opinion. In both cases where I said "in your opinion", that was the case. Statements: Players are going to find that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well or scrutinized to the point that they lose interest in playing. This is an opinion based on a personal belief by one player that Armagedddon doesn't reward one particular type of style. Saying that is his opinion isn't invalidating his belief, but it does invalidate it as stated fact.
I didn't even get into the area where he believes staff disagree with him here. To paraphrase, "we do not seem to agree on the fact that players who are not strong social or alternate components or subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game." That is the view Kryos came into this thread with, even after disagreement and opposition to this opinion on his part, he still feels that way. OK, cool, but it doesn't mean it's true objectively, and stating it as fact is incorrect. We can definitely discuss staff views on things but when the starting position is "you think this way, you should change the way you think," how else should that be addressed? "Thank you for sharing your views on our views?" It's all heavily based on personal experience; it would be useful to know why that view is held rather than that the view is held, because that would help in resolving things.
Quote
I feel a question like the above one, however it might be phrased, is much better a thing to discuss than spreadsheets of numbers and names of psychologists describing gaming theory just so and so.
Far point, I agree with that entirely. Focusing on solutions as they apply to this game and this staff and this playerbase is more important for us to discuss than numbers and gaming theory.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Patuk on March 03, 2014, 06:58:45 AM
You're coming off as more condescending than I think is warranted in what is a very civil thread. Though Kryos has stated multiple times that he does not think people unwilling to RP have no place in the game, quotes such as these end up coming across as 'not gonna read what you're saying' and 'you're wrong because opinion.'
I read what Kryos was saying. I disagreed with it and said as much. Kryos has a very specific set of opinions about what he thinks staff's view on the game is--rather than asking what that is, he is telling us all what he thinks it is. I think it's important to point out when someone is laying something out as objective fact when it is a personal opinion. In both cases where I said "in your opinion", that was the case. Statements: Players are going to find that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well or scrutinized to the point that they lose interest in playing. This is an opinion based on a personal belief by one player that Armagedddon doesn't reward one particular type of style. Saying that is his opinion isn't invalidating his belief, but it does invalidate it as stated fact.
I didn't even get into the area where he believes staff disagree with him here. To paraphrase, "we do not seem to agree on the fact that players who are not strong social or alternate components or subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game." That is the view Kryos came into this thread with, even after disagreement and opposition to this opinion on his part, he still feels that way. OK, cool, but it doesn't mean it's true objectively, and stating it as fact is incorrect. We can definitely discuss staff views on things but when the starting position is "you think this way, you should change the way you think," how else should that be addressed? "Thank you for sharing your views on our views?" It's all heavily based on personal experience; it would be useful to know why that view is held rather than that the view is held, because that would help in resolving things.
I like this answer much more already. I suppose that what I'll want to now is outright ask.
What
are staff's views concerning the improvement of Armageddon and the different ways in which to have fun? I've noticed the world roleplay being dropped a little more than I think is needed, so I'd rather not have it be stated as being the end goal here, as that much is obvious already, and nobody so far seems to imply that less rp is a good thing. If it is possible to quantify this somehow, for example through reviewing the things staff are working at adding to the game, and the most recent and upcoming changes, I'd be rather interested to see in which manner Armageddon has changed in a gameplay-wise manner.
We have a mission statement that we've posted before (Sanvean posted it), but here it is in its entirety.
Quote
Preliminaries:
Armageddon is not a company or corporation; Armageddon is a hobby. It's the equivalent of having a huge train set in our collective basement, and obsessively going down to tinker with it. We want everyone to enjoy being on staff, to feel that they're doing things purely because they want to, and in fact the primary reward anyone should expect for donating their time to a hobby is the enjoyment of the time spent.
The one responsibility that everyone on staff has, and the thing you implicitly agree to when becoming a staff member, is to be an active member of the staff community. This means you should keep up to date on what is happening, in the form of reading the IDB and CDB on a regular basis, and provide information to others in the form of feedback on what they're doing, as well as sharing what you're up to. People who are not a part of the community are not contributing. If you don't enjoy being a part of the staff community on Armageddon, then you probably aren't going to be in charge of much.
That said, we'd like to outline what we feel is most important to the game, because as Overlords, we think it's vital that our vision for the mud be clearly communicated. Armageddon has evolved and changed over the ten some years that it's been in existence, and it will continue to evolve, change and (hopefully) grow.
Accountability:
Accountability comes in three flavors: accountability to the game, to the players and to the other members of the staff. Here's how we see each:
Accountability to the game: To keep working towards the goals of game stability, playability and consistency.
Building: Making items and NPCs that are consistent with the current guidelines.
Building: Keeping abreast of changes and events on the game.
Building: Taking charge of typos and ideas, fixing and verifying them and then making sure they get cleared out of the file once they've been verified/approved.
Coding: Not leaving code half-baked or unfinished.
Coding: Making sure code is balanced and consistent with the current documentation.
Coding: Spending time on code that will maximize people's enjoyment of the game, rather than focusing on code that is so specialized or complicated that it may never get used.
Coding: Taking charge of bugs and making sure that they are fixed, tested, and removed from the bugs file when resolved.
Staff: When posting on the Net, in the form of usenet postings, ISCA, or the Armageddon webpage, or emailing players, to refrain from flamebait, statements which cast a bad light on the game, or insulting other MUDs.
Quests: Running quests that are consistent with current guidelines, which incorporate existing events, and which don't collide with things already existing on the game.
Accountability to the players: Treating players fairly and consistently.
Building: Keeping your clans informed as to IC/OOC events, and making sure you check bugs/ideas/typos on a regular basis to fix things that affect them. If you have to take RL leave, make sure your areas are covered so the players aren't left in the lurch.
Coding: Testing changes thoroughly to make sure they don't crash us, and posting what's been done in case not everything was tested sufficiently so the crash bug can be fixed
Coding: Making sure command syntax is (fairly) intuitive and more importantly, that command syntax is consistent
Coding: Making sure new features are sufficiently documented in the form of helpfiles, as well as included in news, the MOTD and/or the GDB.
Documentation: Answering questions on the GDB, wishes, account mails, mails to clan immortals both informatively, politely, and in a timely way.
Quests: Running quests which are consistent with current documentation. Finishing quests completely, and not scheduling events for players and then failing to show.
Quests: Treating players fairly. This is not to say do away with the karma system, but hand out karma or perks to players who have earned them. Not because they're a pal in real life, or bought you beer.
Quests: If a player dies or is harmed as a result of your actions, emailing the account with a report on what happened, so if the player emails the account about it, their letter can be answered.
Staff: To be consistent in how things are done. For example: Booting the imm port at a consistent time, so the players know when to expect it will be down, and when it will be back up again. Or setting out guidelines for approving/rejecting apps, and letting the players know what those guidelines are.
Accountability to Staff: Respecting the efforts and time of the other staff members.
Building: Not interfering in another person's area of responsibility or doing something that will have a major impact on them without checking/letting them know ahead of time.
Coding: Airing major changes on the IDB ahead of time, and asking for input. Not making a major change without some consensus on the part of the upper staff.
Coding: Documenting changes thoroughly and letting people know what's new so they can incorporate it in their quests and building. Coding things that are useful to other staff members, and making sure there are no bugs in the code which create problems for people running quests or building.
Quests: Keeping each other informed of plots, events and other information they might need.
Staff: Treating each other fairly and consistently, trying to work out problems directly, or, in the case of Storytellers and Highlords, through someone higher up, should the problem not be directly resolvable. Not engaging in backbiting, or discussing other staff members with players.
Staff: Letting the rest of the team know when you will be absent, particularly when there are plotlines or projects that are dependent on you.
Staff: Adhering to the guidelines sent out in the Storyteller and Highlord documentation, including the staff contract.
Priorities:
The priority list for working in any area of the game, whether it's coding, quests or building, are:
Stability: Increasingly, we're working towards less lag and longer uptimes. Being able to use the testport to test possible crash bugs will move us even further in this direction.
Balance: Making sure code and building do not unbalance the game. Documentation and building like Halaster's template weapons or Krrx's template NPCs assists in this as well.
Consistency: Adhering to the existing documentation. while continuing to expand it. Making code and syntax consistent overall.
Accountability: As listed in exhaustive detail above.
G-Factor: Things that make players go 'Gee-whiz, that's cool!' Anything from a small building detail to a slick piece of code or an inventive, atmospheric quest.
Not on the list, but valid as long as they adhere to the above.
I read this in a book...
A few years ago...
When I was mortal, we always played it that...
Focusing on using/extending what we have:
Code: The code shouldn't be so specialized. Any spell should be usable as a spice, as a poison, as a psi power, as a skill. And the other way around. We add new skills, and people want more spells, we add more spells, and people want more psi powers. And all of them have bugs and issues of game balance. Focus on using and extending the functionality of what's there.
Example: People make requests to see DMPL extended here or there, or see fixes in DMPL. This is a prime example since they're not asking for a whole new language, just a more stable and usable feature in DMPL.
Example: Checking the bugs file to look for flaws in your own code, and making sure they get fixed, so the code is fully functional.
Example: Expanding the light code and adding color values while fixing it so the room echoes when someone moves in with a light.
Example: The gith_gear dmpl, which works with existing merchant code, rather than against it.
Example: Having the crafting code often work with forageable objects.
Example: All the additions Morgenes has made to the emote code, such as being able to use emotes with objects.
Quests: Quests need to be followed through on. Starting a new quest is not a solution to leaving another unfinished. Quests, like code, should interact more. Quests should also try to use what's there, to expand and amplify the existing world and documentation.
Example: Daigon doing Byn travel quests, and Keraptis coordinating with BlackMoon raiding quests.
Example: Quests which use past events as a basis, such as Radoon's going to Mal Krian to find the ruins of the library there. Quests that ask players to find an item or NPC that is already in the game, rather than specifically built for the occasion.
Example: Bhagharva and Talley adding to the arena area, as well as the existing code there, to create the Gladiator RPTs.
Example: The 'quest' where the elves & humans fight for territory in the 'rinth. This doesn't involve demons, ancient assassin cults, or anything, and the players are free to explore it and find out what is going on, they can take part, or flee it.
Example: Kadius sending people on weekly 'quests' to find items for the stock and warehouses. This makes them interact with the existing world and existing code to get what they need. They feel that there's a benefit to exploring and learning the various markets.
Building: There's not as large a need for 500 new items, as there is for having the existing database used more.
Example: Rotating shop merchandise to get old items out into the game.
Example: Going through the existing database to fix old items or make sure they're flagged correctly.
Example: Revamping existing areas, such as Krrx did with the Red Desert and the Salt Flats.
Example: Making the crafting code work with as many existing objects as possible, rather than building entire new sets.
Example: Camps and villages. The wagon code wasn't intended to be used this way, but it is an excellent extension of existing code.
Example: Tents. Again, an imaginative, interesting extension of the wagon code which fulfills a player need.
Example: Lizards/Birds that are 'alive' that people use as pets. Rather than coding it to allow NPCs to exist within characters.
Summary: We've always been about quality over quantity; this is only backing up that ideal.
I think that encapsulates our views on staffing and improving the game.
Staff views on the different ways in which to have fun...but without mentioning roleplay? OK, I'll do my best. Well, I like killing PCs. That's fun. I don't really like exploring areas so much unless there are PCs to kill there, because that's fun. I like achieving big things if possible because it's really difficult, and even failing that is fun because I probably got killed or got to kill someone doing it. I like thwarting PCs that want to achieve stuff that my PC doesn't want to have happen. That's fun because it sometimes means killing PCs.
I mean, there's plenty of roleplay woven all throughout the things I like to do, but I guess at its base level, those are the things I like to do if we absolutely ignore all roleplay elements involved. Of course, without the roleplay element, I wouldn't want to do those things
here, so there's that.
Quantifying the things staff are working on adding to the game? We tend to try to focus on showing and then telling rather than telling and then showing. As such, here's what we've worked on in the past.
Major code additions:
5/21/2008 -- virtual economy added; shopkeepers now have a chance of selling items virtually
10/2008 -- changes to the things that combat affects (barrier, scan, listen, paralysis, magickal sleep)
1/8/2009 -- if you have karma, PC death in the first 3 hours of play no longer causes a repop
1/14/2009 -- cloaks may now be opened and closed
6/23/2009 -- half-elves may choose appearance at char gen
7/27/2009 -- new skill, trample
9/28/2009 -- autopayment system for clans
2/8/2010 -- reroll undo implemented
3/24/2010 -- direction sense ability added
4/1/2010 -- written description of skill level aptitude added to "skills" command
4/12/2010 -- nosave combat added
11/11/2010 -- spice deposits may now be foraged in silty areas; updates to forage to allow keyword search within a category (i.e. forage rock for pet)
1/5/2012 -- significant changes to flee, making it a more valuable skill to have
1/2012 -- extended subguilds / skill boost system added
2/14/2012 -- spice grains may now be sold in bulk as an automated job
6/5/2012 -- rooms outside of city gates are now quit-safe
8/7/2012 -- karma changes, whiran moved to 6, drovian moved to 4
10/29/2012 -- quit ooc command added, allowing player to quit out for emergencies
8/22/2013 -- skellebain rework
12/9/2013 -- directions command added to help navigating in hometown
1/13/2014 -- update to char gen allowing origin location
2/17/2014 -- charm functionality created
2/17/2014 -- ability to bury stuff
We also added somewhere between 200 and 250 rooms last year, possibly more.
Plot-wise, you tell me--there's stuff on the history page from recent times, there are rumor board posts, there are player announcements for RPTs, and who knows what will happen next?
What Arm needs right now is another APM Vegas.
This game has shifted a lot over the years. It has shifted directionally towards the social becoming more important, along with the roleplay becoming more important. It would probably be fair to say that it will take more socialization in today's game to achieve something, than it would have fifteen years ago. The standards have changed, and in many cases, the staff haven't necessarily been around when the MUD had a drastically different dynamic.
I liked Sanvean, she had an openness to ideas when I interacted with her, and I fondly remember discussing ideas for gith with her and...err, a coder I can't remember which one, in a room in Vegas. What I think is a shame she didn't include in her Accountability list is an accountability to listen to player ideas and incorporate. It happens, but in my perspective, this is an area that has drastically changed over time.
As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things. Not public statements, but real discussion. Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).
APM Vegas, baby.
Aside from the usual stuff like trying to be as awesome as I can for my clans, and tackling all the normal staff duties, here are my personal goals for trying to improve the game as a whole:
1) Player support: In my short time as a returned staff member I've already seen a few cases where a promising newbie played for a few days and left, never to return. Sometimes they had a bummer death, or sometimes they couldn't get past the syntax, but more than once it just seemed like they couldn't find enough people to connect and roleplay with. That makes me sad. As well, there are lots of you who are awesome players with 3-12 months of playtime and are doing great, but could maybe use just a bit more guidance, support, or personalized interaction to grow into seasoned veterans. Regrettably, I feel like it's too easy for players like that to stay beneath our radar as staff and not receive the praise they deserve, or the gentle redirection to keep bad habits from forming. Today's newbies are tomorrow's veterans, today's veterans are tomorrow's kickass players in high profile roles, and today's kickass players might be tomorrow's new staff members, but we need to make sure we don't lose people on the vine along the way. That's a more important goal to me, personally, than just increasing our numbers. So how do we help with this? Personally, I try to leave positive account notes/pinfos, and help out with answering requests/wishes/player needs in game whenever I can. I think it isn't always the big things, it's really the little things that make all the difference in Armageddon.
2) Typos: we have a backlog of something like 1000 typos across the game (including rooms, npcs, objects, helpfiles, and coded messages.) For a text based game, I find that below the standard of quality we should strive for. My personal goal is to hit at least 20 or so of those guys per week, so that by the end of the year we're at or close to 0. Then we can start on bugs.
What we sometimes lose sight of in the quest to find things that are wrong with Armageddon is that the game does a hell of a lot of things right. Sure, we want to focus on our weaknesses and reduce them, but we also want to play up our strengths as much as we can. Deep, engaging roleplay, immersion in a consistent and believable setting, and a world that reacts and responds to player stimuli large and small, are things that we can and should be doing better than any other MUD out there. Those are the things I think the staff and players could stand to hone in on in discussions like this, along with focusing on the mission statement as posted by Nyr.
So, going back to Bartle types, I don't think Armageddon will ever be a game that caters to K players as well as GodWars, or E players as well as some of the MUDs that are much larger than us in terms of size; although this is debatable since Armageddon has plenty of interesting secrets you can uncover if you explore. If you want to use the definition of an A player strictly as somebody who enjoys building up coded skills and using them to accomplish ever-more-difficult goals, we'll probably never do that as well as Aardwolf. I don't think this should be a shock to anyone, and I don't think we should try and compete in those demographics anyway. We know what sort of players we want to attract, and we've attracted plenty of them; the question should be how do we attract more of the same people we have, and get them to stick around longer.
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
The standards have changed, and in many cases, the staff haven't necessarily been around when the MUD had a drastically different dynamic.
Two producers have been on staff since before you started played the game. One of them crafted this document with Sanvean in 2000. The standards of the game have changed and improved (unless you really were keen on halflings hanging out in the Labyrinth)...the fact that these standards changed does not make the new standards bad.
Quote
What I think is a shame she didn't include in her Accountability list is an accountability to listen to player ideas and incorporate. It happens, but in my perspective, this is an area that has drastically changed over time.
There's a reason that isn't there. This is the mission statement for all staff, and that mission statement does not include an obligation to incorporate every single player idea. If every staff idea can't be implemented, then every player idea can't be implemented. Things won't be implemented for lots of reasons. We have a certain amount of bandwidth for staff work and that must be taken into account for any work on anything. Even without this obligation, we do listen to player ideas and incorporate them when it is feasible and when the idea fits with the gameworld and our other overall goals. See the host of code ideas I mentioned; many of them were player ideas at some point. There's a thread on the code forum (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,43471.0.html) that covers that.
Quote
As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things. Not public statements, but real discussion. Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).
Feel free to ask and get involved!
I've been skimming all of the follow up posts in this subject. I did read the full writing by Kyros. I believe it was very well thought out and I know how much time and effort was put into it and I applaud Kyros for this. That is not to say I complete agree with what was said.
Having said that I'll put my opinions in on here which people may freely agree or disagree with, that is everyones perogative to do so.
First of all I still find it quite sad that the standard MMORPG is WoW. I have tried many times to play WoW and each time I have HATED (yes that word is capped to show how much I hated it, then even hate is an understatement) it. The ONLY MMORPG I have really liked and had fun playing was DAoC (Dark Age of Camelot).
Next part I decided as a gamble I would waste some time taking this Bartle test. It was exactly as I expected it to be: Here's two ways I want you to pick you have to pick one of them. There were times when neither of the answers applied to me and there were times when I was forced to choose one when both weighed equally in my mind. People are NOT computers there is an on or off switch for everything. The decision isn't always black or white. People have variations of grey. Having said that I came out pretty close together in socializing and exploring. Makes it no big surprise that a majority of my characters tend to be ranger or outdoor type characters. Makes it no big surprise that the one time I decided to play a Stormer I HATED it (yeah fully capitalized again).
Achievement speak, yes I love to achieve... But my achievements aren't always "Be able to kill a 'met in one hit" type achievements. Some days I'll get on Armageddon and my achievement will be for my character to make one new friend, you say "But wait, finding a new friend is socializing" Yeah it is... Its also my idea of achievement. But right you think that's socializing, again that's your opinion and you're free to think that.
Creation speaking, I HATE crafting. My characters only tend to craft while they are sitting around for it to be light out, or if they are actively talking and RPing a situation with people. So creation wise for me might be to create and strengthen a plotline, friendship, relationship. Right again this could be considered socializing.
I do enjoy Armageddon quite a lot. Whenever I see a new player around that seems to be struggling I try to help them out. Recently, there was a new player that a character of mine met (I won't give many details about this new player for anyone to know, but I'm trying to make a point so hopefully it will be enough and not too much). This new player was asking lots of questions about IC information trying to garner it up. Asked the story behind this or that. Why is this done or that done like this? Tell me the stories about this, please. I enjoyed that. I give huge props to this new player, whoever you might be. Unfortunately, like so many of the new players this one was found dead the next RL day. I felt bad and wondered if the new player would ever play again. I hope my trying to help them out to learn IC information IC'ly would get them to stay and not become discouraged.
Now I'll discuss my thoughts on why new players don't last long. Again these are my own opinions and you are welcome to yours. I just ask that you read them thoughtfully and keep an open mind.
1) Tuluk is very new player friendly in way of resources and hunting. It sucks in way of active players to help out new players (I wonder if more people had been around if the new player I talked about above would have lost his character or still had the same 1st character around and alive and soaking up information so he/she could become a great player). Staff has stated they are working to remedy this. I'll wait and see, but for now the population seems woeful MOST of the time.
2) Comments from staff of the sorts of I tolerate Tuluk (as if this is a forced toleration) from someone who is part of the Northern Staff Group is very disheartening for me. If you feel you only tolerate that, perhaps you could switch and go to a staff group where you enjoy it and let a staffer that enjoys Tuluk move to your place so that someone that is happy with Tuluk actually is working for the players and with the players. When I saw that statement I was quite hurt that someone that didn't want to be working on Tuluk actually was, it almost made me cry to think that maybe things would different if there were people who actually loved Tuluk and wanted to make it better on the Tuluk Staff Group. Maybe I misinterpreted the meaning behind the statement, if so I apologize and would like to hear from that staffer as to what exactly was meant.
3) New players don't use the resources available. They don't read the documentation, they don't use the help files, they don't read the GDB. Its been so long since I was a new player I'm not sure what the new account emails look like. Perhaps something could be done that a new GDB account is created with the new MUD account and all the information gets sent in that Welcome to Armageddon email. Along with that the documentation links could be sent, perhaps the FAQ and simple stuff like here's some useful first commands that you should know. Maybe this is already being done, but I'm not sure like I said I haven't seen that new player email in many many many years.
4) I've heard discouraging stuff from players here and there. I know one particular player who was advised by a helper in the helper chat not to waste a special application for an extended subguild, because as the helper said your character won't last long enough to make use of it anyways. I was floored when I heard that. Ironic thing is that this player is still on their first character and is wishing they had done the extended subguild as their first character is now I believe over a couple IG years old. I think helpers should re-evaluate what they are telling new players. I don't advise to sugar coat things, of course not Zalanthas is a harsh environment and new player's first characters do die quickly for the most part. But I believe helpers should be there to encourage new players. Let them know all the alternatives. Don't just automatically assume that the first character is going to die in a couple RL days. If I was a new player and I was told You're character will probably be dead in a couple RL days I probably wouldn't play. I'd say screw that.
I think I've said what I wanted to say. I did take time and looked into this before just rambling on. There are a few things that do frustrate me about Armageddon. Do I love playing it and love being on it, sure of course I do. I wouldn't play if I didn't. I'd be willing to help out to making whatever changes need be made or helping anyway I can as well.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
The standards have changed, and in many cases, the staff haven't necessarily been around when the MUD had a drastically different dynamic.
Two producers have been on staff since before you started played the game. One of them crafted this document with Sanvean in 2000. The standards of the game have changed and improved (unless you really were keen on halflings hanging out in the Labyrinth)...the fact that these standards changed does not make the new standards bad.
I don't remember if I started in 93 or 94, much less the exact wizlist at that time. However, in context of my post, my memory was that Morgenes, Nessalin, Tiernan and Saikun were around at that time, possibly Tenebrius (but I have a niggling feeling I am mistaking that for someone else), and that formed my assumption. Obviously I could be missing some and there could be staff that were players then and became staff later. While it is great have have some long lasting staff like that, that is hardly the majority, which was the basis for the comment.
I seem to remember discussing some of the things that went into that document at one point at the APM, staff and players, but I don't remember the context in whether it was before or after it actually got put together. The dynamic of that discussion (and side conversations) is just something we couldn't have here on the GDB, the request tool or at an online player/staff meeting.
My take on changing dynamic was not meant as a jab at staff or the evolving standards, but rather on things like perspective of staff / player relations, and how that has changed, for better and or worse and for different reasons, over the years, and that today is very different from before, in that respect. Communication channels are certainly not ISCA, mostly for the better, but a certain personal element has been lost.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
What I think is a shame she didn't include in her Accountability list is an accountability to listen to player ideas and incorporate. It happens, but in my perspective, this is an area that has drastically changed over time.
There's a reason that isn't there. This is the mission statement for all staff, and that mission statement does not include an obligation to incorporate every single player idea. If every staff idea can't be implemented, then every player idea can't be implemented. Things won't be implemented for lots of reasons. We have a certain amount of bandwidth for staff work and that must be taken into account for any work on anything. Even without this obligation, we do listen to player ideas and incorporate them when it is feasible and when the idea fits with the gameworld and our other overall goals. See the host of code ideas I mentioned; many of them were player ideas at some point. There's a thread on the code forum (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,43471.0.html) that covers that.
I definitely worded that badly if that was your interpretation of what I was trying to say. I was thinking more in terms of treating the players or playerbase like a partner. The post that you referenced actually highlights the shift fairly well I think. The ideas there are all code ideas. It seems like (again, my perspective goes back to 93 or 94) the adoption of code ideas is fairly constant, if not as great as it has ever been except for times of prolific coding by certain individuals. But other ideas, around perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game and such seem to be a more limited conversation.
Certainly the dynamic and the feel of the interaction has changed. For instance, at one point I thought that housing was represented in the gameworld in a way that didn't make much sense. I wrote something up, and sent it in, explaining my perspective that housing should be more communal in nature, but that all the private spaces not related to clans were essentially single family dwellings (at that time). The interaction during that made me feel like not just the coded submission, but the idea behind it, in terms of my perspective of the gameworld, and how different housing would make sense for it, was gratefully accepted and valued. That building was eventually converted to the automated apartment script, later, and seemed to serve as the template for much of the housing to come (single axis hallway, doors off each side, most one chamber rooms, higher end multiple rooms). Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things. Not public statements, but real discussion. Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).
Feel free to ask and get involved!
Not actually sure how to take that.
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 03:13:13 PMCertainly the dynamic and the feel of the interaction has changed. For instance, at one point I thought that housing was represented in the gameworld in a way that didn't make much sense. I wrote something up, and sent it in, explaining my perspective that housing should be more communal in nature, but that all the private spaces not related to clans were essentially single family dwellings (at that time). The interaction during that made me feel like not just the coded submission, but the idea behind it, in terms of my perspective of the gameworld, and how different housing would make sense for it, was gratefully accepted and valued. That building was eventually converted to the automated apartment script, later, and seemed to serve as the template for much of the housing to come (single axis hallway, doors off each side, most one chamber rooms, higher end multiple rooms). Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.
Would you care to unpack your last sentence more? What's changed, why would you not want to submit contributions like that today when you would have previously? I'd honestly like to know.
Quote from: slvrmoontiger on March 03, 2014, 02:55:26 PM
2) Comments from staff of the sorts of I tolerate Tuluk (as if this is a forced toleration) from someone who is part of the Northern Staff Group is very disheartening for me. If you feel you only tolerate that, perhaps you could switch and go to a staff group where you enjoy it and let a staffer that enjoys Tuluk move to your place so that someone that is happy with Tuluk actually is working for the players and with the players. When I saw that statement I was quite hurt that someone that didn't want to be working on Tuluk actually was, it almost made me cry to think that maybe things would different if there were people who actually loved Tuluk and wanted to make it better on the Tuluk Staff Group. Maybe I misinterpreted the meaning behind the statement, if so I apologize and would like to hear from that staffer as to what exactly was meant.
I assume you're talking about me when I said this:
Quote from: Nyr on February 05, 2014, 12:58:09 PMWe on staff also tend to...tolerate...Tuluk.
In context, this was in response to a player complaining about Tuluk getting a lot of attention, the implication in their words was that Tuluki staffers are Tuluk fanboys/fangirls and don't like Allanak and that there was some massive conspiracy to just not do as much stuff to Allanak because no one on staff liked it. The point made wasn't that we on staff despise Tuluk. It was that Tuluk has a lot of interesting potential, we see that, we have a vision to see it through, and unfortunately, we have to slog through work to fix the things that do not work that well at all to get to that interesting potential. More context from that statement:
Quote from: Nyr on February 05, 2014, 12:58:09 PM
Again, why fix what isn't broken? You point out here how much you hate Tuluk and how much it is intimidating and how it sucks and what-not, I point out that we're actually working to collect things, expand docs, etc--make it make sense, have a foundation, etc--and then you're saying "well obviously Allanak is getting the short end of the stick!" There have been no major pushes to change Allanak because Allanak works fairly well on its own. It can use some love (and it has gotten it, not sure how you've missed the building work), but it's more of a tender loving care thing rather than a full frontal lobotomy and colorectal cleanse.
That may come as a shock to some people, I dunno. We on staff love Allanak. I've had some great PCs from there and from Luir's, too. It might need a bit of tweaking here and there, it might need a documentation revamp/overhaul just like every other clan has gotten/will get, but a complete "from the ground up" workover that requires stripping out stuff that simply sucks ass? It doesn't need that.
We on staff also tend to...tolerate...Tuluk. Even when we're putting through these changes and stuff, we have to (at times) grab the reins and yank the player towards "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE NOW." It is frustrating to have to do that. There are parts we like. There are parts that need work. And there are parts that raised enough ire over enough time that it resulted in an HRPT as the only plot-sized vehicle that could effect that much change. As someone invested in over ten thousand words of documentation changes in the templarate alone, let me be the first to say that I have mixed opinions about the city-state of Tuluk. While working on something that absolutely blows that must be fixed, I despise it. When animating something with the rest of our wonderful team to show the new change, I love it. When explaining how it could be and how it should be and how it (hopefully) will be with some additional work, I love it as well. It's the same feeling I've gotten working on fixing stuff in other clans I've handled.
I'm sorry this upset you. Luckily, the quote in context is nowhere near what you are saying! :)
Quote4) I've heard discouraging stuff from players here and there. I know one particular player who was advised by a helper in the helper chat not to waste a special application for an extended subguild, because as the helper said your character won't last long enough to make use of it anyways. I was floored when I heard that. Ironic thing is that this player is still on their first character and is wishing they had done the extended subguild as their first character is now I believe over a couple IG years old. I think helpers should re-evaluate what they are telling new players. I don't advise to sugar coat things, of course not Zalanthas is a harsh environment and new player's first characters do die quickly for the most part. But I believe helpers should be there to encourage new players. Let them know all the alternatives. Don't just automatically assume that the first character is going to die in a couple RL days. If I was a new player and I was told You're character will probably be dead in a couple RL days I probably wouldn't play. I'd say screw that.
The proper place to bring that up would be with staff in a prompt player complaint rather than complaining publicly about a Helper on the GDB some unspecified time later. Even if as you described, we won't be able to get logs from that far back. Dropping some honesty on a newbie isn't a bad idea, and I'd give the Helpers the benefit of the doubt: if they did so, they did so very nicely and not in a snide way.
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 03:13:13 PM
I don't remember if I started in 93 or 94, much less the exact wizlist at that time. However, in context of my post, my memory was that Morgenes, Nessalin, Tiernan and Saikun were around at that time, possibly Tenebrius (but I have a niggling feeling I am mistaking that for someone else), and that formed my assumption. Obviously I could be missing some and there could be staff that were players then and became staff later. While it is great have have some long lasting staff like that, that is hardly the majority, which was the basis for the comment.
Ah, probably my mistake. I was going off of whatever known account we have for you which lists 1998. No big deal, I was just pointing out that the direction of the game overall is influenced and shaped by the Producers, two of whom have been here longer than you.
Quote
I definitely worded that badly if that was your interpretation of what I was trying to say. I was thinking more in terms of treating the players or playerbase like a partner. The post that you referenced actually highlights the shift fairly well I think. The ideas there are all code ideas. It seems like (again, my perspective goes back to 93 or 94) the adoption of code ideas is fairly constant, if not as great as it has ever been except for times of prolific coding by certain individuals. But other ideas, around perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game and such seem to be a more limited conversation.
What is an example of something that you feel should be discussed more, but isn't? If nothing else, I'm sure an answer for why this has changed could be provided (if it has changed).
QuoteToday, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.
Why not?
Quote
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things. Not public statements, but real discussion. Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).
Feel free to ask and get involved!
Not actually sure how to take that.
...you're here...I'm here...you know where this is going. That's right. Real discussion. :-*
Basically, I just meant that communication is a two-way street--that if you wish for staff to discuss something, you can also open up the conversation.
I'm not Twilight, but that last sentence to me seemed to read as this (obviously biased towards my own views on the game, and possibly entirely off the mark):
There does not seem to be a lot that players can do to influence the world. They're even more helpless than the characters they play, in that regard. Their characters, at least, can do the whole "be the change" thing, and push to make things occur in-game, albeit with the chance of total failure and quite possibly no tangible end result. Players, meanwhile, are told that if they want to see a change, they should play a character who attempts to enact that change - and if they are playing a long-term character that has no business trying to make such a change, tough. Other changes are way beyond what a character either could accomplish or would even have an interest in accomplishing, too.
(I get the sense that I'm deviating further and further from what Twilight meant here, but might as well finish)
To give some examples:
If players would like to see more tribes in the game, whether to populate the Tablelands with some actual humans beyond just a few wandering NPCs, or to see some recognisable city elf tribes spring up, there isn't much they can do. Playing a tribal PC with three other members of an immediate family doesn't cut it, and doesn't lead to long-term change.
If players would like to see more items in-game, they are typically directed to mastercraft these items, unless there is a call for submissions. Sometimes, they simply can't mastercraft things, or it's something that shouldn't really need the attention of an artisan - inexpensive items that would surely be available to the entire vNPC populace without too much trouble, in particular.
If players would like to see dwellings or private rooms in the game that aren't apartments, well, there's nothing they can really do about it. Hovels and shacks are the sole domain of vNPCs, and even though they're actually referenced in the room descriptions for an inn or two, inn rooms just aren't really a thing.
And one more somewhat more tangentially related thing:
If players want to establish their own groups that aren't directly tied into coded clans to begin with, but eventually does become a coded clan, with some of the things that only clans get, they are going to have a nigh-impossible time of it. Personally, I would love to see it made easier. It's kind of an OOC restriction as is. Warehouses were a nice step in the right direction, although making it slightly easier to obtain a barracks space and even a sentry NPC would be fantastic. And if they haven't made nice to the IC powers that be, sure, they might be run out of town/murdered, but I think people would be willing to accept that.
Quote from: Delusion on March 03, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
If players would like to see more tribes in the game, whether to populate the Tablelands with some actual humans beyond just a few wandering NPCs, or to see some recognisable city elf tribes spring up, there isn't much they can do. Playing a tribal PC with three other members of an immediate family doesn't cut it, and doesn't lead to long-term change.
That's true, it does need staff to build those and it would also need staff to staff those if they are meant to be playable. This is a mix of several factors--player consolidation, sometimes plot, sometimes staff bandwidth vs player interest. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to please all of the players all of the time.
QuoteIf players would like to see more items in-game, they are typically directed to mastercraft these items, unless there is a call for submissions. Sometimes, they simply can't mastercraft things, or it's something that shouldn't really need the attention of an artisan - inexpensive items that would surely be available to the entire vNPC populace without too much trouble, in particular.
Also true, but part of the mission statement mentions using existing items when possible. We haven't done a submission call for too much in a while. I wouldn't mind doing so if I had a project for building items that were public, but I don't have one and I don't have time to do it.
QuoteIf players would like to see dwellings or private rooms in the game that aren't apartments, well, there's nothing they can really do about it. Hovels and shacks are the sole domain of vNPCs, and even though they're actually referenced in the room descriptions for an inn or two, inn rooms just aren't really a thing.
Also true. It relies on staff to build it. Looks like Adhira is heading in that direction, though. Not hovels and shacks, but apartment work. Admittedly, that isn't what you want, but that's not really the direction the game is heading, so take that for what it's worth.
Quote
If players want to establish their own groups that aren't directly tied into coded clans to begin with, but eventually does become a coded clan, with some of the things that only clans get, they are going to have a nigh-impossible time of it. Personally, I would love to see it made easier. It's kind of an OOC restriction as is. Warehouses were a nice step in the right direction, although making it slightly easier to obtain a barracks space and even a sentry NPC would be fantastic. And if they haven't made nice to the IC powers that be, sure, they might be run out of town/murdered, but I think people would be willing to accept that.
That's an area that has been discussed before probably, but "create-your-own-coded-clan" is complicated. If it is too easy, it has the potential to completely overwhelm independents staff and unbalance the game focus from a staff perspective. If it is difficult enough, players might think it's too hard and not even try. As you say, warehouses are a nice step in the right direction. This was implemented with the intention of seeing where players took it, though.
Yeah, on the tribes thing, I can appreciate that diluting the playerbase isn't necessarily a good idea. Having an NPC human tribe or two - even if undocumented, generic tribes - with camps in the Tablelands might go a way to changing the perception that the Tablelands are the sole domain of elves and gith, and bolster what the documentation actually says, though I guess they might not get interacted with much. City elves - well, that's been discussed loads.
I get the existing items thing. If there are already thousands of items in the database (there are, I know), why make more when we only use a fraction of what's there? However, I get the sense that a bunch of pretty mundane items aren't really available to PCs through any regular means. Setting aside GMH items, since those can be obtained in-game and staff can load them if they aren't craftable, I'd say there are still quite a few things that can neither be crafted or bought from NPC shopkeepers. Obviously I don't have any data but the purely anecdotal on that, in most cases - I'm mostly going by what I see NPCs wearing (and I've sometimes seen items crop up in shops and can tell exactly which NPC was murdered to obtain said item :P). Perhaps I just miss things, but in my ideal world, at least, if there's a fairly generic, mundane item that isn't sold by a clan that can put in item orders requests, and it can't be crafted, then it should be available from an NPC shopkeeper. Again, I don't have hard data, so I may just have a skewed perspective, but it seems a shame if items are locked away and inaccessible.
I'm certainly not about to go quit over the lack of PC-owned hovels. It was more just an example of where a player's character can't really be the change IC, and where something that exists in abundance in the virtual world isn't available to PCs -- and players themselves can't really alter it, either.
Actually, regarding that and PC-created clans - are you at all familiar with the "dwelling" code used by Atonement and Harshlands?
Edit: re: the last question of mine, they're subtly different from each other, so I should say or rather than and, I suppose, but in both cases, are/were tremendously useful. And I can go put it in a new thread rather than derailing this one.
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 03:13:13 PM
I don't remember if I started in 93 or 94, much less the exact wizlist at that time. However, in context of my post, my memory was that Morgenes, Nessalin, Tiernan and Saikun were around at that time, possibly Tenebrius (but I have a niggling feeling I am mistaking that for someone else), and that formed my assumption.
I remember the top staff as being Azroen, Jhavalar, Kelvik, Nessalin, T<something>, and Ur, back in '95. And Bram, although he left after the Israeli hacking incident. Odd, Azroen's not even on the wizlist anymore.
Lots of good thoughts and points to chew on in this thread so far, which is great to see. I'll come back with more thoughts tomorrow evening myself!
I am really enjoying the dialog in this thread. Staffers, thank you very much for the open discussion.
Staff has gotten a lot more commutative about things in the recent years. I can't see this as anything but a good thing. Too often in the past, there was this attitude of "fuck off" from staff. It wasn't sent in those words and it may not have even been intended thusly, but it seemed to be there, between the lines.
These days, staff seems to want to both ensure that we understand things, and foster a belief within us that our thoughts are heard, and that they care about what we think and feel concerning this beautiful story we share together. I really can't underline and highlight how much this more open attitude and this new standard of communication really means to me, as a player.
So, yeah. Thanks.
It just occured to me, it'd be pretty cool if the staff would send you a little email to your account when you got a positive account note. it doesn't have to say what the note is, just, 'you got a positive note on your account! send an account notes request to see it.'
that'd be cool because someone said they try to retain newish players by putting positive account notes on em but if they never put in an account notes request they may never even know they got those positive notes
That'd be nice. I know they like informing you of when you get negative ones!
Not...not that I get them. I just hear stuff, y'know...
It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.
Every goddamn week Nyr sends me vitrolic emails about how terrible a player I am. It's like we're married. :-*
Quote from: HavokBlue on March 05, 2014, 05:40:43 AM
It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.
Already usually the case.
Quote from: Nyr on March 05, 2014, 08:44:36 AM
Quote from: HavokBlue on March 05, 2014, 05:40:43 AM
It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.
Already usually the case.
I've learned that what we perceive as players to be a negative account often times isn't. It's meant to inform, not chastise.
We also do try to send notes to Players (either via character reports or an email) when they receive positive attention from Staff, and when we note their account accordingly.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 04:10:03 PM
Ah, probably my mistake. I was going off of whatever known account we have for you which lists 1998. No big deal, I was just pointing out that the direction of the game overall is influenced and shaped by the Producers, two of whom have been here longer than you.
I thought my account had been created when the account system went in (which would be an indication that it wasn't when I started playing), but maybe not, its been awhile.
Again, I was getting at the perspective of staff. While it is great that they have been around for that long, Producers, and especially those two, are not necessarily who players interact with. Perspective is both general, and I agree this would be influenced by the Producers being around, but is also specific to individual staff, which is more where I was going with the comment.
Quote
What is an example of something that you feel should be discussed more, but isn't? If nothing else, I'm sure an answer for why this has changed could be provided (if it has changed).
It took my awhile to think through this. Part of being a partner, to me, is having more of a parity in the conversation. Staff have undertaken things over the years that have shifted the nature of the conversation so that they are more in control of it. Gone is ISCA, communicating directly with a staff member via mud e-mail (or mudmail for that matter) without copying the main account, and APMs that have staff participation. We still have the GDB (although one could argue the nature of the conversation here has also changed significantly over the years), the request tool, and some various other methods (facebook, twitter,?). But overall, the conversation has shifted from bi-lateral to multi-lateral, and has in doing so lost the personal aspect. There have been a number of benefits that have occurred due to this shift, that no doubt outweigh the loss, but it is a loss nonetheless. This ties into what I was mentioning about staff perspective, I would guess there are staff on board who were not around for ISCA or even when more communication was via bi-lateral emails to a specific immortal's email, so they could potentially lack perspective on what that was like, and the benefits that were given up to move to the current dynamic.
Another aspect of that control is the more frequent use of statements like "We have discussed it and are not going in that direction." These tend to stop a conversation, they also lend the impression that it doesn't matter what you say after that, nothing you say on the subject is going to be given consideration. I can understand why it is necessary, I have certainly seen the same things come up here, again, and again, and again, and again. But contrast this to "We have not seen any ideas that have convinced us to change direction." Or something that gives the reasoning (as opposed to just reasons), which is certainly more personal. My experience on another MUD years ago also leads me to believe that sharing reasoning is one of the critical ways that you change people's perspective on a game, and build players into staff, and staff into higher level staff.
You asked for an example though. Let's use the current changes to housing that was announced. Since then, I have seen a lot of opinions on the change posted. I've seen a few ideas posted, I even posted one. I saw the implementation of a vision and strategy posted (1 per region, racial limits). I have seen something posted that hints at more (renovations). I haven't seen the actual vision and strategy for housing posted, although I can back into part from the 1 per region obviously, can make some guesses from the racial limit change, and am murky on what else the renovations might be supporting. I missed the discussion around that vision and strategy, if it took place here on the GDB. That vision and strategy would be, I am guessing, at the level of "perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game". I chose this example over others because it seemed to have a greater potential for being driven by OOC factors, rather than IC factors, and thus could have had the potential to be discussed at that level with players beforehand.
QuoteQuote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PMToday, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.
Why not?
A mishmash of policies and posts that perhaps I am not remembering correctly? Let's remember how I went about this, when I did do it. I wrote it all up (rooms, building layout and NPCs inhabiting it). I wrote the argument for why I thought this would more accurately represent the world. I sent it in. I had a pretty specific idea about how having it look a certain way would help portray the squalor, multi-person living conditions I envisioned, which meant to me, at that time, doing the writing myself.
My understanding is that currently submissions are accepted via mastercraft submissions, or by answering a call in the Submissions forum, due to policies that have changed the dynamic to certain specific channels of submission that limit the scope of what can be submitted. Mastercraft is more limited than my submission would fit into and the submission forum would require staff ask for it in the first place.
Which would mean, if I wanted to do something like this, I would first have to post an idea on the GDB (or use the request tool, I guess). I would have to get staff to agree that the idea was good enough to go in, and then convince staff that I should be the one to write it. Seems more work to me (for me) than how I originally did it, which took two days (less than 4 hours altogether). And frankly, a smaller chance of success.
If that is not the process that I would have to go through, please let me know, would be glad to hear it!
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things. Not public statements, but real discussion. Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).
Feel free to ask and get involved!
Not actually sure how to take that.
...you're here...I'm here...you know where this is going. That's right. Real discussion. :-*
Basically, I just meant that communication is a two-way street--that if you wish for staff to discuss something, you can also open up the conversation.
Originally I meant in person conversation (note I mentioned APM and 10%). This goes back to my thinking that some of the personal aspect of the conversation has been lost (I don't consider boards to be in any way personal, even if a "personality" is in evidence, so this may just be me), with more parity (RL conversations tend to have a more equal footing, breaking down dynamic that the power structure between staff and players creates, in my experience), and hopefully bi-lateral rather than multi-lateral.
Quote from: Twilight on March 05, 2014, 01:57:26 PM
Quote
What is an example of something that you feel should be discussed more, but isn't? If nothing else, I'm sure an answer for why this has changed could be provided (if it has changed).
It took my awhile to think through this. Part of being a partner, to me, is having more of a parity in the conversation. Staff have undertaken things over the years that have shifted the nature of the conversation so that they are more in control of it. Gone is ISCA,
ISCA? I understand what that means after asking Tiernan (bulletin board chat system at the university of Iowa), but what relevance does this have but nostalgia? No one on staff is...there...anymore...at least as far as I know...and BBS code is ancient. This isn't an example of shifting the conversation so that we are more in control of it, it's an example of technology moving forward.
Quotecommunicating directly with a staff member via mud e-mail (or mudmail for that matter) without copying the main account,
You can still communicate directly via e-mail, but we advise you not to--not because we hate you or don't want to talk to you, but because your communication with staff needs to have accountability on all sides. Again, more of an issue of having accountability, but also using technology when feasible to improve that.
Quoteand APMs that have staff participation
Maybe the big change there is that as staff have gotten older and developed little staff babies of their own (or other parts of their lives, such as careers/schooling/relationships/family/etc. stuff) they simply are less available for such things. I know some of those are true for me.
QuoteBut overall, the conversation has shifted from bi-lateral to multi-lateral, and has in doing so lost the personal aspect. There have been a number of benefits that have occurred due to this shift, that no doubt outweigh the loss, but it is a loss nonetheless. This ties into what I was mentioning about staff perspective, I would guess there are staff on board who were not around for ISCA or even when more communication was via bi-lateral emails to a specific immortal's email, so they could potentially lack perspective on what that was like, and the benefits that were given up to move to the current dynamic.
As you say, the benefits of our current system do outweigh the loss. Multi-lateral communication births accountability and an actual required response, two things you don't get by e-mailing a staffer directly.
I played a sponsored role in the "b-lateral, totally personal staff-email days" and e-mailed a staff group. Oftentimes I'd get no real replies and no real support. Sometimes no acknowledgement of receipt. I was happy playing the role and happy to keep going, but I am happy to see the days of "bi-lateral, totally personal staff e-mail" go away.
Your request is there. Every staffer can see it if you can see it. It will not get lost. It will still take time to resolve some things like it did before, but it's all in one place. What it lacks in the ability to personally reach out and touch a staffer's staff e-mail address directly, it makes up for in "actually working."
QuoteAnother aspect of that control is the more frequent use of statements like "We have discussed it and are not going in that direction." These tend to stop a conversation, they also lend the impression that it doesn't matter what you say after that, nothing you say on the subject is going to be given consideration. I can understand why it is necessary, I have certainly seen the same things come up here, again, and again, and again, and again. But contrast this to "We have not seen any ideas that have convinced us to change direction." Or something that gives the reasoning (as opposed to just reasons), which is certainly more personal. My experience on another MUD years ago also leads me to believe that sharing reasoning is one of the critical ways that you change people's perspective on a game, and build players into staff, and staff into higher level staff.
Do you have a specific example of a case where knowing the "why" of staff reasoning would make this different? Does the way "no" is phrased really matter that much? If so and if you are looking for more answers, you could always ask.
QuoteYou asked for an example though. Let's use the current changes to housing that was announced. Since then, I have seen a lot of opinions on the change posted. I've seen a few ideas posted, I even posted one. I saw the implementation of a vision and strategy posted (1 per region, racial limits). I have seen something posted that hints at more (renovations). I haven't seen the actual vision and strategy for housing posted, although I can back into part from the 1 per region obviously, can make some guesses from the racial limit change, and am murky on what else the renovations might be supporting. I missed the discussion around that vision and strategy, if it took place here on the GDB. That vision and strategy would be, I am guessing, at the level of "perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game". I chose this example over others because it seemed to have a greater potential for being driven by OOC factors, rather than IC factors, and thus could have had the potential to be discussed at that level with players beforehand.
We don't discuss everything with players beforehand and we never have done that across the board.
In this case it was a happy surprise that Adhira was putting in new apartments and the code that we've been using for years just didn't work properly. I personally tried to fix it and failed. Adhira fixed it after finding that some values did not save in the right spots. It broke again after another crash. We fixed it again. It broke again after another crash. Tiernan tackled looking both at the apartment code and the reason for the crashes. Crashes fixed. Apartment code adapted to prevent this data loss. Then (since he was already in apartment code) he added functionality that extended apartment code, functionality that we (on staff) have wanted for years: the ability for apartments to be restricted based on the OOC constraints of apartment space availability vs PCs. (At present we think a "1 per region" restriction is perfect because it will free up apartment space for other PCs; at present there are 7 PCs renting a total of 15 apartments.) He also threw in racial restrictions (if desired). Like I mentioned when asked, I don't really have any plans to implement the latter in Tuluk at this time, but if I do, I'll give forewarning.
If you have suggestions on how this should or could be implemented if/when it is, feel free to put up a thread discussing it. I don't think a discussion was put up for this particular change because of the fact that it wasn't really a plan by either city-state admin (Welda or myself) and neither of us have this on our plates right now. Yet.
There are plenty of examples of staff asking for feedback on changes--usually after they are going to go in, but the feedback is still requested. You can also give feedback on changes without it being requested.
Quote
A mishmash of policies and posts that perhaps I am not remembering correctly? Let's remember how I went about this, when I did do it. I wrote it all up (rooms, building layout and NPCs inhabiting it). I wrote the argument for why I thought this would more accurately represent the world. I sent it in. I had a pretty specific idea about how having it look a certain way would help portray the squalor, multi-person living conditions I envisioned, which meant to me, at that time, doing the writing myself.
My understanding is that currently submissions are accepted via mastercraft submissions, or by answering a call in the Submissions forum, due to policies that have changed the dynamic to certain specific channels of submission that limit the scope of what can be submitted. Mastercraft is more limited than my submission would fit into and the submission forum would require staff ask for it in the first place.
Which would mean, if I wanted to do something like this, I would first have to post an idea on the GDB (or use the request tool, I guess). I would have to get staff to agree that the idea was good enough to go in, and then convince staff that I should be the one to write it. Seems more work to me (for me) than how I originally did it, which took two days (less than 4 hours altogether). And frankly, a smaller chance of success.
If that is not the process that I would have to go through, please let me know, would be glad to hear it!
You could just put in a request and do exactly the same thing. And if staff says "no," that's still exactly what would've happened before if staff didn't think it worked. It may have a smaller chance of success but that's probably more because your idea gets shown to all staffers at once, and requires a broader amount of support than "oh, I'll just talk to Amos on staff, we're bros, he'll do this and say it was his idea." I'm not saying that's how your idea happened before, just that this is what that prevents: favoritism towards any given player.
Quote
Originally I meant in person conversation (note I mentioned APM and 10%). This goes back to my thinking that some of the personal aspect of the conversation has been lost (I don't consider boards to be in any way personal, even if a "personality" is in evidence, so this may just be me), with more parity (RL conversations tend to have a more equal footing, breaking down dynamic that the power structure between staff and players creates, in my experience), and hopefully bi-lateral rather than multi-lateral.
From time to time, I'd love to hang out with some Arm players at an APM. Real life does not afford me that luxury at this time. When I can, I'd like to look at that. The same tends to go for other staff. We even did a Producer live chat player/staff meeting last year, which had a buttload of players that attended. We can do another (especially now that we have our own Teamspeak server). Those who can hang, should!
QuoteQuoteQuote from: Twilight on March 03, 2014, 01:02:01 PMToday, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.
Why not?
A mishmash of policies and posts that perhaps I am not remembering correctly? Let's remember how I went about this, when I did do it. I wrote it all up (rooms, building layout and NPCs inhabiting it). I wrote the argument for why I thought this would more accurately represent the world. I sent it in. I had a pretty specific idea about how having it look a certain way would help portray the squalor, multi-person living conditions I envisioned, which meant to me, at that time, doing the writing myself.
My understanding is that currently submissions are accepted via mastercraft submissions, or by answering a call in the Submissions forum, due to policies that have changed the dynamic to certain specific channels of submission that limit the scope of what can be submitted. Mastercraft is more limited than my submission would fit into and the submission forum would require staff ask for it in the first place.
Which would mean, if I wanted to do something like this, I would first have to post an idea on the GDB (or use the request tool, I guess). I would have to get staff to agree that the idea was good enough to go in, and then convince staff that I should be the one to write it. Seems more work to me (for me) than how I originally did it, which took two days (less than 4 hours altogether). And frankly, a smaller chance of success.
If that is not the process that I would have to go through, please let me know, would be glad to hear it!
I think part of the reason this process exists is not for staff benefit, but actually to shield players from disappointment if they spend a lot their time and creative energy thinking up and writing something, and then staff say we won't, or can't, or don't have the time, to implement the idea. I would hate to see anyone, staffer or player, spend a lot of time thinking up something cool and awesome only to have it languish on a shelf; sadly, this already happens too often, and it can have a discouraging effect if it occurs too frequently. Time and creative energy are both precious resources when it comes to Armageddon, and so we want to try and maximize the usage of both to see returns on investment, which may mean not letting some projects start unless we're sure they fit into the game and we can finish them. Does that make sense?
Thanks for fielding my questions/comments, I appreciate it.
FYI - I will post more on the apartments as they happen. The original intention was merely to renovate them and to add one more set to Allanak which was lacking in space. I added the new apartment. Then as Nyr said issues came up, and Tiernan helped us out with fixing them and then added in some extra functionality we'd had on a wishlist, some of which is discretional and adds to other things the code could already do.
Like all projects there's been a slight delay for me in getting this further underway. Once I'm ready to renovate that first space I'll post what we're doing and why. There may also be some calls for submissions.
Responses
I wanted to touch a bit on what Patuk's earlier posts were on, regarding responses to posts and how they sometimes are interpreted by players. I had some trouble finding how I wanted to base what I was going to say to be impactful and fair, but I think I've finally settled on a tact.
Closed Discussion
There's a philosophical term out there called a closed discussion. To define by example, imagine if you sat down a devout Catholic and a devout Atheist in the same room, and told them to discuss God. As you might already expect, the problem here is that both sides come in with a strong position and no intent of letting that position change. They will regard other people's ideas simply with an intent to discredit or dissect them.
When Nyr responded with a comment about anyone who isn't role playing not being suited to Armageddon, I felt like it was already a closed discussion. As Patuk had said, I tried to mention that several times in both of my initial, long posts. And when talking in the situation we are, player to staff, there's an inherent inequity involved that makes closed discussions especially costly to players.
Reciprocity
That trouble is reciprocity in the consequences of a closed discussion. If a staff member comes into a discussion with a player with it as a closed discussion, only the player loses out of hand. The reason being, if their ideas are not heard, the person on the staff side does not have any opportunity cost associated with that. The player, however, loses whatever was entwined in that idea(emotional, mental, or other investment).
On the other side of it, if a player comes into a discussion with a staff member with the intent to have a closed discussion, there is a cost. For example, if a staff member sent me a request saying, "Kryos, we saw you killing an NPC in Luirs and didn't think it felt the RP of the outpost, due to VNPC populations or <some other factor>." If I respond with, "your opinion," and stay the course, even if it is just two opinions being vetted, I'm going to suffer consequences.
That might be not improvement to communications karma, a loss of the character, or a reprimand in the form of an account note, or a written one in the request. In short, the balance of power in all communications lie in the hands of the game staff.
Final thoughts on CD/Reciprocity
I'm not saying that either Nyr came in with something like a closed discussion. Further, due to the high volume of player to staff contact, with far more players than staff, brevity often has value and appropriate uses. Efficiency is good for the players as it generates higher turnover. I think that needs to be clear.
That being said, when its a communication such as this one, where someone's obvious invested a great deal of intellectual capital and effort into it, brevity isn't as value and can come to project the idea of a closed discussion to the player, even if its not the case or intention.
Examples of how Achievers Can Struggle
Nyr asked for some examples of how Achievers(as per my description, or yees + the inclusion of the idea of goals for the behavior) who play the game of Armageddon find a lack of support. I'll try and list a few ones below.
Succeeded in Achieving? Store your character.
The first large example that comes to mind is the absolute limit on PC rank and status within a clan. If you're a Blue Robe Allanak templar who'se kicked butt, taken names of anyone you've not oppressed, and pleased the Highlord enough to be knocked up to Red Robe (something an Achiever style player would drool over) that player looses. Yes, the character won, but there's no reward for the player, in fact, there's a harsh punishment.
If you get the job done as an Achiever and hit a high clan rank, the plug gets pulled and you're sent back to chargen. It'd be like beating Nefarian in vanilla WoW and instead of epic loot, you get reset to level 1. This is a very big slap in the face to Achiever ambitions in a game.
Further this compounds with S behavior, especially A/S, as you don't get to bask in your reward. There's examples of this in every clan I've played in, and what's more, there's facets of many clans that are extreme A draws that are simply now marked as unplayable.
I will not go into details what the facets are, as I believe that'd breach the agreement of not sharing IC info in a public manner, but I think a lot of veterans and of course staff understand what I'm pointing at here.
Hard caps of success, that are instead punishments to A, S, or both styles, and inaccessability of certain avenues of play that would draw these types.
Some Skill Based Examples
Caveat: I'm about to talk about the guild: Warrior a lot. It is not because this is the only available example, but because I have the widest range of familiarity with the specific guild and so I can best reflect on its specific situation in the context of Achievement problems. This is not an attempt to say 'buff warriors.' I also do not think it is necessary or preferential to 'balance guilds and skills' wholesale. Yet, there's some things to consider.
There's also some skill based examples. Now, this is a touchy area to speak on because I have no desire to reveal information that would look poorly on my intent to follow policy. I'll do my best to keep to what can be shared.
Generically speaking, let's look at the guild: warrior.
"Warriors are the easiest persons to employ. They are invaluable as guards, soldiers, mercenaries, military advisors, outriders, scouts, gladiators, or even as assassins and spies. No other guild can match a warrior's combat prowess, and thus all warriors are much needed parts of any clan or mercantile operation. "
When an Achiever oriented player sees this, they likely think along the lines of, "warriors = ultimate butt kickers of the mundane guilds." Yet, they will quickly find this is not true for a number of reasons.
The core aspect of a warrior, the ability to conduct melee combat, is one of the hardest to improve in rate and the idea of reaching peach, in the game, if not the hardest. The first of that, the slower rate, is actually tantalizing for an Achiever, it gives a longer range of investment. However, the second part, that it is difficult, or neigh impossible, to reach the highest end of that ability is directly against Achiever interests.
Further, other guilds get access to skills that will quickly leave the warrior finding his ability to kick butt in melee is rather lackluster. These skills, such as the stealth or ranged abilities, reach their peak much more rapidly, and give the possessor all the tools they need to negate that power for the warrior, they chose where, when, and at what range to engage in conflict with these skills.
There are other skills that do this same thing when possessed or not by a character, but I think I'm already treading on thin ice regarding what's reasonable to discuss or not. In other words, you are not getting all you think you bought in satisfying play styles.
Changes
Lastly is the power to change. The innate ability to change the world is a very large draw for the Achiever style player, and Armageddon does not incorporate change easily. Achievers wish to accomplish goals, A/S perhaps for recognition, pure A simply for the act of accomplishing them, A/G perhaps to undermine the goals of others in a spectacular fashion.
Additionally, this has a large impact on what I previously described as players who enjoy the Creator playstyle. Because you cannot easily add in a medium/large fashion to the game, a great deal of their ability to engage in this is lost. Players cannot even use some of their coded skills to accomplish finished products on a large scale (except rarely, with a great deal of waiting and the the great chance of failure).
The inverse is also true, players do not have much power to destroy things in the world, which is likely a detriment to the G, but, because they cannot, also impeding the growth and enjoyment of A and C. If things can be destroyed, they would need to be rebuilt, and so on.
This is hardly a simple thing to fix, for quality control and code issues, but I think its worth discussing.
A day late, but hopefully not a dollar short.
I agree with one thing Kryos says in his post: if you kill Tektolnes, he should definitely drop a Legendary. I'd feel cheated otherwise, having gone through all those Acts.
On a more idea based note: applying into roles for new players.
SoI did this for everyone, and I think there's some value in the critical first few hours. If players with 0 karma were able to, out of chargen, immediately join up with a 'always open' clan such as the armies, byn, and merchant houses, at the lowest rank they could avoid the early confusion and some times inability to find recruiters with overlapping play times, and instead emphasize immediately getting into the thick of the game itself.
For players who have spent a few characters and learned enough, this isn't likely valuable. But a new player would get to skip that frustrating initial stage and shorten a deal of the confusion/time out of contact with experienced players.
Quote from: Nyr on March 05, 2014, 08:44:36 AM
Quote from: HavokBlue on March 05, 2014, 05:40:43 AM
It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.
Already usually the case.
If that's already true, disregard me then :)
I know that I have one or two negative notes for one-off incidents I didn't find out about until I sent a request. I wish I'd seen them at the time as it would have let me know to take special care in regards to not making that same mistake again (mistakes that didn't occur to me at the time as mistakes or even conscious decisions).
I'm not particularly bothered by it in the scheme of things, but I know there are some players out there that react very negatively to things like that when they feel they weren't given a chance to tell their side of the story or even informed that they'd messed something up.
Quote from: Kryos on March 05, 2014, 09:05:57 PM
On a more idea based note: applying into roles for new players.
SoI did this for everyone, and I think there's some value in the critical first few hours. If players with 0 karma were able to, out of chargen, immediately join up with a 'always open' clan such as the armies, byn, and merchant houses, at the lowest rank they could avoid the early confusion and some times inability to find recruiters with overlapping play times, and instead emphasize immediately getting into the thick of the game itself.
For players who have spent a few characters and learned enough, this isn't likely valuable. But a new player would get to skip that frustrating initial stage and shorten a deal of the confusion/time out of contact with experienced players.
Most of your points I either agree with, or are ambivalent about. This one though, I disagree. The Byn, the armies, and the merchant houses have PCs at the helm in the individual units. Those PCs are the employers; not the House at large. That's IC. OOC, if I were a Sergeant of a Byn crew, I would not be very happy about a staffer throwing some new player into my unit, without my knowledge. As someone who did play a leader in a GMH, I resented the shit out of "inheriting" someone else's bad choices for employees, from the moment I first logged in as the leader. And they weren't even new players. Not every leader *player* wants to get new players dumped on them without even so much as a "pssst- head's up." And when you impose new players on leaders in that way, that's exactly what it ends up being. An imposition. It should be something that the player of the leader sets out to do, not something that gets done to him. That makes for resentment and burnout on the part of the leader, and not much fun on the part of the new player, whose only "crime" was being thrust into a clan without the leader having a chance to be the one to hire him.
Quote from: KryosSucceeded in Achieving? Store your character.
The first large example that comes to mind is the absolute limit on PC rank and status within a clan. If you're a Blue Robe Allanak templar who'se kicked butt, taken names of anyone you've not oppressed, and pleased the Highlord enough to be knocked up to Red Robe (something an Achiever style player would drool over) that player looses. Yes, the character won, but there's no reward for the player, in fact, there's a harsh punishment.
I don't know that I'd call storage for being awesome a "harsh punishment". It's basically acknowledging you've won the game. Your reward is the pride in having carved your name into Armageddon's history and hearing mentions of your character years later. Sure, it's sad to let go of such an accomplished character, but by and large once you reach those heights your story for all intents and purposes has already hit its climax and it's time for the curtains to come down.
There has to be a glass ceiling somewhere. Where should it be? If we allow PCs to hit Red again, they'll just be stuck and unable to hit Black. Do we allow them to hit Black? What's the point? By the time you're a Red Robe you're already so much more powerful than average PCs that it almost feels like cheating to play near them. Besides that, staying true to the game world means Red Robed templars can't exactly walk down to the tavern for a drink on a regular basis. Your soldiers in your own clan are too unimportant to meet with you. Like the Genie in Alladin, you have phenomenal cosmic power and itty bitty living space.
This isn't to say I don't think there should be promotions available for nobles and templars. (Senior nobles, in particular, I think can work out just fine - fancier title, extra money, but still easily overcome by clever junior nobles/templars.) Blue robes could likewise get additional titles and perks from the Highlord without being promoted to demigod's-ville and out of the reach of other templars. Maybe they already do? But anyway, my point is that you can take it from me that being stored for being too cool for school isn't a punishment, it's more like a badge of honor in the trophy case.
Quote from: Kryos
Changes
Lastly is the power to change. The innate ability to change the world is a very large draw for the Achiever style player, and Armageddon does not incorporate change easily. Achievers wish to accomplish goals, A/S perhaps for recognition, pure A simply for the act of accomplishing them, A/G perhaps to undermine the goals of others in a spectacular fashion.
Additionally, this has a large impact on what I previously described as players who enjoy the Creator playstyle. Because you cannot easily add in a medium/large fashion to the game, a great deal of their ability to engage in this is lost. Players cannot even use some of their coded skills to accomplish finished products on a large scale (except rarely, with a great deal of waiting and the the great chance of failure).
The inverse is also true, players do not have much power to destroy things in the world, which is likely a detriment to the G, but, because they cannot, also impeding the growth and enjoyment of A and C. If things can be destroyed, they would need to be rebuilt, and so on.
This is hardly a simple thing to fix, for quality control and code issues, but I think its worth discussing.
You're right that Armageddon doesn't change easily. Maybe it's too rigid, but I'd prefer too rigid over too flexible, and here's why: to me a sense of permanency is a good thing to establish a deep and compelling setting. If every character at 50 days played could establish their own House, with their own traditions, and their own sayings, and ranks, and so on, there'd be too many to keep straight. They'd constantly be rising and falling by the wayside as players died, stored, or quit the game. I don't know for sure, but I bet it'd be a staff support nightmare, too! Now compare that to Houses with rich and storied histories like Kurac or Borsail or Lyksae. I guess I'd just rather see depth over breadth.
Anyway, I think these sorts of discussions are nice to have now and then, even if we don't agree, and thank you to staff for participating too! :)
I think the solution to a glass ceiling is to move sideways, not upwards. Lieutenant in the Arm? Aim to become Praetorian. It's happened before (I'm an example). Senior Noble? Gain ancilliary prestige; become the warmaster, master of coin, spymaster of your House - not a direct promotion, but a title nonetheless. Senior Agent? Same as Nobles.
Achievement is what you make of it, not what the staff make of it. I don't see why staff WOULDN'T let you fluff your feathers by giving you an arbitrary gratis nobliesse, it only defines what you define it as, and holds as much authority as you yourself present to the world and they accept.
To further my above point, I ONLY play characters in which my own authority is self-enforced. For a long, long time, staff have never given me any clan privileges, any coded authority, anything at all for that matter. I can say that with absolutely frank conviction I have been given nothing by staff and yet I have presided over many players and they have willingly furthered my agenda under the pretense of my charisma and force of personality. I have literally not even been in a clan.
I've had a fair amount of leadership experience and I've learned the hard way that I can be a great leader, but I had to first suffer the hard knocks and villainous decisions of my staffies to teach me the lessons I needed.
It takes so many years to reach those levels of power (senior noble, senior agent) that in and of itself is an Achievement, and personally it took me a long time to branch out to the point where I could ever consider myself capable of reaching those facets. I've grown a lot as a player, I think, and I'm a big achiever who tends to let himself down a lot in setting lofty goals and falling flat. I achieved a great goal, a while back, that really exemplified that it does take dedication to reach the point where you're just better than everybody else.
Why would you want to be a Red Robe/Black Robe anyways?
Furthermore, if you wanted to get rid of the glass ceiling... why would you ever, for all the love of all that's vile and evil, want to reach the position that -Tektolnes- or -Muk Utep- are standing on? That would be just utterly ridiculous for ANY player to achieve.
Here's an example. I played a DBZ MUD, for a while. I do, off and on, and in it you are not really limited by power. So in short order, in about a months time, we had two or three players speedmax their way to level 100 and they are currently the single most powerful PCs in the game aside from staff avatars. The problem, therein, lies in the fact that they bypassed a huge part of achieving that level - roleplay. Because it was based on RPP. Now, take all that away. What you have is a guy whose HP/Power is measured in hundred millions playing around people whose power/HP is measured in hundred thousands. This is why glass ceilings are important, for Armageddon.
I don't want to be that hundred-thousand in a game world with PCs who are hundred millions.
Quote from: KryosSucceeded in Achieving? Store your character.
Being stored is not a punishment, nor is it a reward. It's a "Game Over" screen which basically says "Your PC has reached a position of extreme power and/or inability to relate to, or interact with, the vast majority of PCs in a meaningful way that ICly makes sense." Staff don't promote you in order to store you - you request the storage by requesting the promotion, or other change in your PC, with the understanding of what will happen afterward.
There's already some lateral "promotions" to make up for the glass ceiling, and IIRC staff have said on the GDB in the not-too-distant past that they are looking into how to improve this aspect of a long-lived PC's life. Should there be more & improved opportunities? Certainly.
While this game has the biggest staff out of all the RPIs, it also has the biggest active playerbase by far, and many of these players do not reach the point where the glass ceiling even matters. For every PC who lives for 1+ RL year, there are 1000s of characters who die or store a few months or less after they first enter the game. The game, and the staff, understandably, optimize the experience of the game for the players of this much larger group of characters, because it is the aspect of the game players are most certain to reach. That's not to say the long-lived PCs who have earned it shouldn't get any staff attention - they should, and do, and are likely to get more if what the staff have said recently is true.
Quote from: KryosChanges
I think it's easy enough for the PCs in position to change things, to change things. But like I said above, the vast majority of characters never reach a point where they are in that position. This is arguably one of the benefits that people who are near the glass ceiling actually get - the ability to change the world around them, not only through building but also through top-tier participation in wide-spanning plots.
I would argue that IG, is easier to create than it is to destroy, despite the reverse being true in the real world, as I'd assume that staff want to focus more on adding things in than taking things away from players (although of course, things can be destroyed if it is approached properly, and even recently things have been destroyed through the efforts of players).
QuoteClosed Discussion
There's a philosophical term out there called a closed discussion. To define by example, imagine if you sat down a devout Catholic and a devout Atheist in the same room, and told them to discuss God. As you might already expect, the problem here is that both sides come in with a strong position and no intent of letting that position change. They will regard other people's ideas simply with an intent to discredit or dissect them.
When Nyr responded with a comment about anyone who isn't role playing not being suited to Armageddon, I felt like it was already a closed discussion. As Patuk had said, I tried to mention that several times in both of my initial, long posts. And when talking in the situation we are, player to staff, there's an inherent inequity involved that makes closed discussions especially costly to players.
I am posting a bit late and perhaps the discussion has moved on, but this point is interesting to me.
I do not think it is a case of closed discussion. Arm IS an RP game. That is the most central point in it's identity. It is probably one of the most RP intensive games around. The game is designed to be as such, and that makes it kind of a specialty game. You do not go to a specialty tailor to buy a bit of food for tea. And you should not expect to have any great enjoyment of Arm if you do not want to do the work that is required in an RP specialty game.
The types that were discussed early on in this thread, need to be looked at from this perspective. In that sense the discussion is not closed and the numerous posts and staff attention to the thread attest to this.
In addition, on the types you mentioned, it should also be noted that good RP is akin to good acting. A good actor does not play her/his actual personality in a part, but rather plays the role, most likely even adopting a different personality type to stay in character. Assigning personality types to players does not necessarily mean that those types are reflected in their characters in game. I have played what you would call a "Griefer" who was mean and nasty and would PK at the drop of a facewrap. I have played Dwarves whose focus made them achievers. I have played Explorers and Creators. And I know other players who have played a multitude of types and done so much better than I.
Perhaps the list of category types is just to short? Perhaps we need to add another type; The Roleplayer.
Your points are well taken Kyros, and I thank you for starting this discussion. I see a lot of wonderful ideas and opinions. Don't think I am being critical of you or your ideas. I just felt that we need to be sure we are framing the discussion in terms of apples to apples so to speak, and not in terms of apples to oranges. In any case, Kudos Kyros. Kudos.
QuoteThat trouble is reciprocity in the consequences of a closed discussion. If a staff member comes into a discussion with a player with it as a closed discussion, only the player loses out of hand. The reason being, if their ideas are not heard, the person on the staff side does not have any opportunity cost associated with that. The player, however, loses whatever was entwined in that idea(emotional, mental, or other investment).
You may espouse an opinion about how you think the game should be staffed. Your opinion has been heard. We on staff are not required to agree with it. I do not agree with it. I'm sorry you invested emotional and mental effort into this idea only to have it disagreed with, but that is life; you are not entitled to having people agree with your ideas. It doesn't matter what person with this or that degree wrote about this or that thing. They are not directly comparable to this style of game. If your premise is rejected at a fairly structural level (Bartle doesn't apply to this kind of game) then what else are you left to do? Almost every point you've made, I've made a point to address it from a staff perspective. In your case, many a time you've skipped over specific questions or points I've made in order to rephrase your position or just change the subject.
This particular kind of conversation was perhaps doomed from the start. You came here with opinions about something and you haven't changed them based on feedback. In fact, your opinions are about things that you feel staff thinks, things that we on staff can refute by telling you what we actually think, because we're right here. Great, you aren't required to change your opinion about what you think staff thinks or how you think staff members handle the game, but neither is staff required to agree with you and change their opinions, staffing style, or the like.
QuoteOn the other side of it, if a player comes into a discussion with a staff member with the intent to have a closed discussion, there is a cost. For example, if a staff member sent me a request saying, "Kryos, we saw you killing an NPC in Luirs and didn't think it felt the RP of the outpost, due to VNPC populations or <some other factor>." If I respond with, "your opinion," and stay the course, even if it is just two opinions being vetted, I'm going to suffer consequences.
Here on the GDB, you have your hypothesis that is being rejected by staff members--however, we are willing to discuss and have a conversation about areas of improvement and clarification on previous things that have occurred or future things that are planned, and discuss how players actually enjoy this kind of game. Since staff is staff and you are not, yes, you can at times be spitting into a hurricane; we are not required to agree with you. Ultimately, we do staff this game, and you do not, so when disagreement occurs and you do not convince staff of your thoughts, it does inevitably become a closed discussion. That's how it works and that's how it has worked. You still have your opinion and you can still say staff has theirs and there's disagreement, and the ultimate answer is "well, staff opinion wins out because they staff the game." Your opinion has been heard. It has been disagreed with, though staff have pointed out areas we are happy to discuss and work on improvement. Dunno what else you are really looking for.
We've had players (albeit rarely) pull the argument that you've proposed above for much crappier scenarios, wondering who
we are on staff to judge
them and their roleplay. Perhaps that is also an ultimately closed discussion, yes, but there is no obligation for the player to have karma that would otherwise show they know how to handle said scenarios appropriately. There's also no obligation for them to play the game.
QuoteThat being said, when its a communication such as this one, where someone's obvious invested a great deal of intellectual capital and effort into it, brevity isn't as value and can come to project the idea of a closed discussion to the player, even if its not the case or intention.
Quantity of words does not necessarily make a good argument, nor does brevity of response necessarily make a poor rebuttal.
QuoteSucceeded in Achieving? Store your character.
You view this as a punishment, we do not. You tie this back to Bartle again, too. We also
do allow players to bask in their reward (at least most every time I can think of that this occurred when we promota-stored people, even when storing the "sekrit roles" from last year). Surviving calamity and being promoted to a level in a role few PCs play to a role even fewer PCs attain virtually is commendable.
QuoteSome Skill Based Examples
Skill does not trump the proper application of skill. Plus, the most-skilled PC warrior can still fall to roleplayed machinations.
QuoteChanges
Isar's Tree, Hlum Compound, and Tyn Dashra would all love to have that opinion. Just because staff is required in order to achieve something largely destructive or creative doesn't mean that it is thus impossible for players.
I just wish Staff's responses came off as more diplomatic. What I am getting out of them is: How dare you have an opinion? And how dare you talk about it on the GDB? How dare you play our (staff's) story/game? It just seems that a lot of effort is put into proving "right" with no care for "discussion". Feels like you can get hammered even for a well thought out -seemingly- non-confrontational post.
People propose ideas and changes not as attack on Staff for the game's current state but because they like to play the game. When Staff mixes in the old "Be happy we are volunteers." or "Be happy you don't pay." or "You are free to play elsewhere." that is highly discouraging to me at least. I don't think those points should be trotted out much.
Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.
Yeah, uh, back in the day you were liable to get Nessalin telling you to go fuck yourself.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 06, 2014, 10:58:21 AM
Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.
You used to also be more free to express your opinions fron my perspective. You didn't have to worry about GDB affecting you in game as much.
Quote from: manonfire on March 06, 2014, 11:03:11 AM
Yeah, uh, back in the day you were liable to get Nessalin telling you to go fuck yourself.
But I never got in much trouble for anything on the GDB with Nessalin. Emailing him to say fuck you is another story and I woukdn't recommend it.
That could just as easily apply the other way.
QuoteI just wish player's discussions with staff members came off as more diplomatic. What I am getting out of them is: How dare you disagree with my opinion? And how dare you reply with that disagreement on the GDB, where I put it in the first place? How dare you deign to staff our (the player's) story/game? It just seems that a lot of effort is put into proving "right" with no care for "discussion". Feels like you can get hammered even for a well thought out -seemingly- informative but disagreeing post and blasted as an undiplomatic asshole because you don't agree with someone.
I disagree with the premise, so I guess I'm the devil. If discussion was desired from the start, then a hypothesis about how staff looks at the game shouldn't have been formed without actually gathering info from staff. I'm happy to discuss other things, but there's really not a compelling argument here that makes me want to discuss Bartle types anymore.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 11:03:53 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 06, 2014, 10:58:21 AM
Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.
You used to also be more free to express your opinions fron my perspective. You didn't have to worry about GDB affecting you in game as much.
Whose freedom to express their opinions is being curtailed here? How is the GDB affecting you or anyone in-game?
I'd say some of the opinions expressed on the GDB tend to attract a lot of right ons and hell yeahs from people, which may translate to certain perspectives in game that aren't taking into account circumstances and translate to little more than kneejerk reactions (though possibly in line with certain interpretations of the documentation) in game and more complaints, however, it also offers the opportunity to discuss such things before they become an issue IG, though without being able to discuss details can make things a little difficult (though I understand why specifics or even some generalized statements aren't allowed).
So yeah, I'd say it can affect things, at least from my perspective. This is just my opinion, and it may be seriously flawed.
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2014, 11:08:44 AM
That could just as easily apply the other way.
QuoteI just wish player's discussions with staff members came off as more diplomatic. What I am getting out of them is: How dare you disagree with my opinion? And how dare you reply with that disagreement on the GDB, where I put it in the first place? How dare you deign to staff our (the player's) story/game? It just seems that a lot of effort is put into proving "right" with no care for "discussion". Feels like you can get hammered even for a well thought out -seemingly- informative but disagreeing post and blasted as an undiplomatic asshole because you don't agree with someone.
I disagree with the premise, so I guess I'm the devil. If discussion was desired from the start, then a hypothesis about how staff looks at the game shouldn't have been formed without actually gathering info from staff. I'm happy to discuss other things, but there's really not a compelling argument here that makes me want to discuss Bartle types anymore.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 11:03:53 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 06, 2014, 10:58:21 AM
Haha. You think this is undiplomatic? Man, staff has improved their interaction with us in leaps and bounds. I can't even be mad these days.
You used to also be more free to express your opinions fron my perspective. You didn't have to worry about GDB affecting you in game as much.
Whose freedom to express their opinions is being curtailed here? How is the GDB affecting you or anyone in-game?
They're not starting the discussion how you personally prefer it so you're dismissing it out of hand seemingly. So you don't want to discuss it, maybe other people do. Your post seem to me at least want to snuff it out rather than foster discussion.
As for affecting you in game, I feel you're too quick to ban personally and not being able to use GDB in clan is a big deal sometimes. Also, I thought GDB can affect your karma.
I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 12:26:51 PM
I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
No. No it isn't. It's basically the only reason to even -play- the game. So you can express opinions on the GDB and then get butt hurt when others disagree. Murder. Corruption. Betrayal. It's on the banner for crying out loud.
[/sarcasm]
(OOC: Roll vs. Willpower) Go!
ETA: 8) can't be properly kidding without that...
That's not a bad idea, KankWhisperer. Most of the times I've been unhappy with this game, it's over something that's happened on the GDB. I gave it up for awhile and nearly missed a big clan RPT, but maybe just reading the clan board will do.
RPI MUDders are such a small subset of society, of gamers, of even text gamers, that we ought to cherish each other, respect each other, and not try to drive each other away. There are so few people in the world that 'get' us and there will be fewer as you age, trust me on this. Each is precious.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 12:26:51 PM
I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
I think if you actually did a survey of responses to new ideas, you'd get a pretty even number of players supporting or disagreeing with any given one. I suspect that you don't remember it this way because of the disparity in verbosity.
For example:
Typical supportive comment: Woot! +1 :)
Typical nonsupportive comment: (
Two page rant about why it's a bad idea)
So by word count, perhaps you're right, but by actual responses this isn't the case at all. And there's a reason the word count for disagreement is so high beyond just general human nature. When you're agreeing with someone you're not presenting any new ideas, so you don't need to say nearly so much. Some people do, but the lack of requirement for any new information skews the average towards short responses. Disagreement often requires one or more new ideas to be presented. New ideas=higher word count
Quote
As for affecting you in game, I feel you're too quick to ban personally and not being able to use GDB in clan is a big deal sometimes. Also, I thought GDB can affect your karma.
To the former, put in a staff complaint. You've done this before a few times, so you know the process.
To the latter, yes. Your communication on the GDB or via e-mail can absolutely be detrimental to your account. However, that's for the best. No one is being forced to troll and flame on the GDB.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 12:26:51 PMI'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
That's probably a good idea.
I feel like there are some really good, well-formed, and well-informed opinions in this thread, but as Nyr said, they are just opinions. I think one of the things that people are too quick to forget is that being on staff is not, at heart, an administrative role. It's a creative one. And creativity requires vision. If staff don't share in your vision, they're not going to want to create what you want to create.
The other issue is that the staff->player relationship is by default going to be a little bit like parent->child. Because you as a player can be as intelligent, diplomatic, and persuasive as you want. At the end of the day, though, it is still staff that are going to need to do all the work to make any idea you have a reality. And I'm sure its disheartening for them when they come into the forums a day after a cool change that people have been asking for forever (like bury), and instead of seeing lots of people out using the new command, they find us all huddled on the GDB, having a chat about how we would really like to see more (x) in the game. It's an 'I slaved over a hot compiler all day, and this is the thanks I get?' scenario. What reason do we give them to keep cranking out new stuff, when we don't appreciate that which they have already given us?
Long story short, staff are people too. If you haven't hugged one today, GO DO IT NOW. And then maybe think about things YOU as a player can do to help THEM keep up the will to keep being awesome ("Ask not what your country can do for you...").
I feel like this thread is starting to take a turn for the worse. Don't let that happen. It doesn't have to go that way. And whatever you do, please, please, please, don't antagonize the staff. We need them.
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2014, 01:44:48 PM
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 12:26:51 PMI'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
That's probably a good idea.
Perhaps something like this, where staff agrees with a player that they should not bother getting involved in discussions regarding the hobby they invest so much of their time in, is only going to fuel the previously mentioned idea that staff can often come off as undiplomatic?
I hardly say this to 'flame or troll' (I need to protect my precious karmaz too much for that!), but rather I'm just trying to say what this could look like from a player's perspective, since both groups so often lose sight of the other's viewpoint. I also don't think there was anything inherently wrong with staff's response to this thread, which is the basis for this disagreement in the first place.
Not really an attempt to be undiplomatic, quite the opposite. Sometimes, we on staff are aware of history that indicates that it might be a good idea for someone to follow up on their thoughts. In this case, KankWhisperer is aware of his own background here.
Perhaps it would be better to chastise players more privately, through the request tool, pm, email or mudmail. As we are not collectively aware of the history, the response may read differently than intended.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 12:26:51 PM
I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
This sentiment made me sad. We can do better as a community to foster productive, constructive discussion. If the GDB was only for clan boards, we'd only have clan boards on it. So how do we get better at using the GDB for good discussions?
I'm glad Kryos and others offered perspectives on how life as a player in Armageddon feels for them. I don't always agree with those views, sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't have opinions either way, but am just glad to know what you guys perceive. It's a very different perspective when you're in staff land than it is on the ground as a player, and I think everyone often forgets that. We can, and should - in fact we NEED to be able to disagree without people feeling like their ideas are being crapped on. That goes for discussions among players and between players and staff both.
Please take Kyros' opinions as what they are, the opinions of one player. I read his full OP and about the first four followups and the most recent long post he made. There is almost nothing in any of them that I strongly agree with, and very much that I disagree with in terms of how accepting/helpful the game is for achievement style playing, which is to say I am on Nyr's side with being highly dubious of applying the Bartle stuff to arma in the first.place, and I think on the contrary that arma is the single best MUD out there in terms of game world impact from players. These are truly all opinions and Kyros' expectations are wildly different from my own. Been here seven years actively.
I also feel that all of Nyr's posts have been diplomatic here and there is really nothing offensive in this discussion to me.
Although I'm not really a veteran of Armageddon with only a few years of play under my belt, from my experience the staff are pretty great at doing things the right way. I've had two or three disagreements with staff over things in game in my time, but each was based on confusion on my part and the staff were never cruel or undiplomatic to me, they just explained it.
Sure, some people on Staff could be a bit softer in response, but they're human too and there's nothing directly flaming or trolling in any of the staff's responses.
As for the OP, it was a very interesting thread and gave me a lot to think on. I disagree with some of the points and agree on some others, and hope that this doesn't turn into another 'omg staff r evul' thread since up until recently it's been a good discussion.
I used to rally against the staff and their ways, but one day it clicked. I gazed up at Nyr's enormous face. Six or so years it had taken me to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the ginger moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of my nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I had won the victory over myself. I loved Big Brother.
Quote from: Zoan on March 06, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
I used to rally against the staff and their ways, but one day it clicked. I gazed up at Nyr's enormous face. Six or so years it had taken me to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the ginger moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of my nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I had won the victory over myself. I loved Big Brother.
Dun Dun Duuuuuun
No wonder Tuluk is going all 1984. :P
Quote from: Rahnevyn on March 06, 2014, 02:52:55 PM
Quote from: KankWhisperer on March 06, 2014, 12:26:51 PM
I think the GDB is a contest to crap on anyone's idea as hard and fast as possible. I think it's a net detriment to the game. I'm going to work on the willpower to only read my clan board.
This sentiment made me sad. We can do better as a community to foster productive, constructive discussion. If the GDB was only for clan boards, we'd only have clan boards on it. So how do we get better at using the GDB for good discussions?
I'm glad Kryos and others offered perspectives on how life as a player in Armageddon feels for them. I don't always agree with those views, sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't have opinions either way, but am just glad to know what you guys perceive. It's a very different perspective when you're in staff land than it is on the ground as a player, and I think everyone often forgets that. We can, and should - in fact we NEED to be able to disagree without people feeling like their ideas are being crapped on. That goes for discussions among players and between players and staff both.
I personally prefer staff being bluntly honest to staff diplomatically beating around the bush and/or outright lying. With diplomatic honesty being the ideal. From my experience, staff are honest, whether they are diplomatic about it or not. I think that's the key to staff/player discussion. Even if players don't want to see that staff disagree with them on points, it's better to see that than nothing.
As for player/player discussion, one problem is that the GDB's main thread is just a giant dump of ideas. Imagine if RAT was closed. All the little neat ideas, the mini-discussions that get canceled out with a cry for MORE RANDOM!, and discussions about RP would actually thrive in their own threads. We would actually be used to discussing things and doing so in a nice and clean way, and there would be less threads like this that try to define where the game "is" right now because there would be a bunch of threads to look at for that general picture, each with equally thoughtful posts like that of the OP. We could even have a "bitch thread" where people can vent and cannot see each other's posts, or just encourage people to flesh out their complaint for something worthy of a Roleplaying Discussion thread. At the moment, we have mostly relegated ourselves to one-liners, petty comments about each other's play mixed in with actual insight and "keeping it random".
And there's the code discussion section. Every time I see "well, this is possible to do with triggers in your client, so I disagree with this idea" it irks me a little. That section should be dedicated to improving the game, not finding workarounds where the game falls short.
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 07, 2014, 08:28:51 AM
And there's the code discussion section. Every time I see "well, this is possible to do with triggers in your client, so I disagree with this idea" it irks me a little. That section should be dedicated to improving the game, not finding workarounds where the game falls short.
God, Yes. This annoys the living daylight out of me. Almost as much as players saying things like "staff's time could/should be better spent on other things" or "I wouldn't use this, so it is a bad idea."
Yeah that's why we don't have colors in the game, because like 4 people don't like the idea of color in their MUD experience (there's things called booleans, you can turn off ANSI with a single flag check).
Way more than 4, but I agree - there really should be color. We have seriously had new players who decided not to stick around just because there was no color - I remember 3, from my Helper days.
As long as there were three possible options, I wouldn't care how many colors Armageddon comes with, or what colors they are. The options would be:
Default Arm colors
No colors at all
Client-side player-determined colors.
Without the option to create my own palate using my client's color tools, I wouldn't have lasted more than an hour in Armageddon the first day I started playing.
Oh, the color discussion again.
I guess I should have added in my last post about player/player discussion how ridiculously easy it is for a thread to go off-topic.
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 08, 2014, 09:23:45 AM
I guess I should have added in my last post about player/player discussion how ridiculously easy it is for a thread to go off-topic.
No kidding. Please don't veer off into code discussion in this thread, folks.
QuoteAs for player/player discussion, one problem is that the GDB's main thread is just a giant dump of ideas. Imagine if RAT was closed. All the little neat ideas, the mini-discussions that get canceled out with a cry for MORE RANDOM!, and discussions about RP would actually thrive in their own threads. We would actually be used to discussing things and doing so in a nice and clean way, and there would be less threads like this that try to define where the game "is" right now because there would be a bunch of threads to look at for that general picture, each with equally thoughtful posts like that of the OP. We could even have a "bitch thread" where people can vent and cannot see each other's posts, or just encourage people to flesh out their complaint for something worthy of a Roleplaying Discussion thread. At the moment, we have mostly relegated ourselves to one-liners, petty comments about each other's play mixed in with actual insight and "keeping it random".
I've had this same thought several times. What do other people think? Would discussion on the GDB be better served if we had more focused discussion across several different threads, or is it more the way we discuss things, not the where?
I think it's more likely people would post less altogether if you got rid of the RAT thread. People tend to like the idea that they can post little things here or there that aren't going to be bore down on by the full force of the GDB contrarian-squad, or fully dismantled line by line by ala Nyr. Which the more serious, focused threads tend to get.
Quote from: Rahnevyn on March 08, 2014, 02:20:58 PM
I've had this same thought several times. What do other people think? Would discussion on the GDB be better served if we had more focused discussion across several different threads, or is it more the way we discuss things, not the where?
I think your question here illustrates the core problem : we simply don't have anything interesting to say.
As a note to the original subject, I would add that the preponderance of the, "social," has more to do with attempts to enforce roles.
Yes, bear with me.
I do not believe any effort on the part the staff or players will ever be capable of providing a role for every player that enters the game, and the efforts to force people together, rather than encouraging social activity, tends to force people out.
Ideally, we'd have the game portion to keep people busy. Hunting, foraging, and various means of taking advantage of NPCs.
The staff don't like people doing that like it's the only thing they have to do, but it often is.
Let's face it. Spamming happens as much in the real world as here, with the buffalo hunts of the 19th century and just about any grab for resources (oil, wood, precious metals) ever as prime examples.
To attempt to restrain it by merely punishing those who participate does not change the fact people are encourage to do so by the very game itself. Instead, I would tend to suggest seasonal availabilities, merchants who buy certain goods at certain times of the year. Call it the ebb and flow of the caravans, but it's a bit more elegant than the opaque process of staff punishment (that I imagine) exists now.
I'm really, really good at derailing threads. It's an artform.
Source: I was bored at work and now the complaints thread is about DBZ.
The idea of merchants buying/selling pattern having seasonality is pretty cool. Maybe the way this could be coded (because I think merchants currently are static and don't have the ability for scripts that change buying patterns, even though there are merchants who SELL different items at different times of the year), are maybe NPC merchant buyers that travel from place to place. This has been suggested before (I think by myself). That would definitely help spice up the grebbing/hunting/gathering life.
That'd be pretty amusing: selling some silky braies to the Kadius shop and the shopkeeper being all, 'Tchaw, purple? What is this, last Ocandra? It's all about *vermillion* nowadays, baby!"
Has anyone seen this thread: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31914.0.html Would it mean anything to this thread?