Armageddon General Discussion Board

This is mostly for Desertman and to save RAT from GMH and acronym death.

My contribution: I think there's an important distinction between institutional (or built-in) sources of conflict and staff-driven sources of conflict.  From what I can tell, Dman's claim is something like:

I'm worried that the institutional conflict isn't there, even if staff-driven conflict is.

I'm feeling verklempt. Discuss.

I'm of the opinion that there's always plenty of reason for conflict. Conflict can take many forms. If someone has to die, either you or your enemy fucked up big-time, somewhere. PC death should actually be a last resort. In the words of, I think it was, Sun Tzu, "Every victory is also a funeral.". I worry that built-in conflict would, sooner or later, lead to a GMH declaring "There can be only one!", followed by mass-beheadings and consolidation of resources and employees under a single banner, Wal-mart. That said, staff are working really, really hard to keep things interesting and engaging, and I'm starting to see why many among staff "don't read the GDB", because it's starting to affect me negatively reading these seemingly demanding posts, but it's likely me misreading them.

Or maybe they're fishing for details which can't be given.

Resorting to murder (or at least getting caught) is already highly discouraged IC in the merchant/noble/Templar sphere, and that makes perfect sense and is a good thing.

The argument Dman has been making has never been about staff plots or staff efforts. It's always been about how players are motivated to act by the way the game is set up on the macro level, for 20 years. This has nothing to do with current staff or any individual staff member's efforts. It is in no way a criticism or indictment of staff.

What it has to do with is the game's economy/environment not accurately reflecting the game's themes of scarcity, competition and danger.

Applied to the GMH, it has these results:
there's no reason to care about having good hunters, because you don't need any to get whatever merchandise you want to sell.  

There's no reason to care about other Houses, for some reasons: 1) you don't compete with them for hunters because you don't need hunters, 2) you don't compete with them for resources because resources aren't scarce, 3) you don't compete with them for sales because you're in completely different areas.

There's also no reason to favor one VIP over another in terms of the goods you sell, since you have an essentially infinite supply. If I can only make one Fancy Feathered Hat, I have to decide which Noble is going to get it. That's a source of conflict; the unlucky noble will be offended, etc. As it stands, I can get five Fancy Feathered Hats if I want to.  I ask don't have to worry about Joe Salarr beating me to the punch on Fancy Feathered Hats. If a noble really wants it, they HAVE to go through me or hit the bricks, unless they go through staff.


Again, I have to stress that this has nothing to do with special/plot resources or items. It only has to do with motivators that are not directly resulting from staff actions, which are not in question.

Well, it sounds like the PLAYERS that don't care about getting a good hunting team together, gathering and promoting good help, etc. are to blame and not staff. On the one hand you'll have players complaining about getting "railroaded" into an unwanted plot or feeling like their actions have no impact on the plot's direction, and on the other you're suggesting staff make changes to the documentation in order to force players to do what they should already be taking the initiative to do, or so it seems to me. No thanks. It's not my fault, or anyone else's that some people just don't have an imagination when it comes to some things. I don't need compulsion to act, I am driven to, and I can't be the only one. I don't want the damn game spoon-fed to me, I'm perfectly capable of lifting my own spoon, thank you very much, I'm just grateful someone cooked it and put it on a plate and went so far as to bring it to me.

Again, nothing to do with staff.

It's about the coded aspects of the game. Because this isn't a MUSH, they're worth discussing. They should be tuned so as to provide external motivation for play that supports desired RP. As it stands, they don't.

Quote from: Large Hero on December 25, 2015, 12:08:47 PM
Again, nothing to do with staff.

It's about the coded aspects of the game. Because this isn't a MUSH, they're worth discussing. They should be tuned so as to provide external motivation for play that supports desired RP. As it stands, they don't.

... and, I'm just going to assume you're fishing here.

EDIT: If you really want to know, there are some methods of finding out IC. I hate to resort to that statement, but I'm done speaking on the subject, I may have already said too much.

Quote from: Large Hero on December 25, 2015, 11:47:27 AM
...so many good thoughts but specifically...

Applied to the GMH, it has these results:
there's no reason to care about having good hunters, because you don't need any to get whatever merchandise you want to sell.  

There's no reason to care about other Houses, for some reasons: 1) you don't compete with them for hunters because you don't need hunters, 2) you don't compete with them for resources because resources aren't scarce, 3) you don't compete with them for sales because you're in completely different areas.

Quote from: 555 on December 25, 2015, 12:04:30 PM
Well, it sounds like the PLAYERS that don't care about getting a good hunting team together, gathering and promoting good help, etc. are to blame and not staff.

Not really sure where this thought came from.  Players try and put hunting groups together in game all the time.  A big difference is that when non-GMH groups do it it is much more difficult, they don't have GDB role calls for leaders for their group, when there isn't anyone in the group good enough to advance to that rank.
To imply that players disagreeing with the system that's been in place for twenty years must be players who don't care about making things happen in game is presumptuous and sort of shitty.

...I really don't think anyone is fishing for some great, super-sekrit IC game info that you or your PC is valiantly guarding in game.  They're just discussing issues.

Edit: fixing quote-issues due to phone-typing being a pain.

This thread was inspired when D-man posted about why GMH play is boring.

My opinion is that the entire reasoning is (probably unintentionally) a strawman, because it's based on the presumption that GMH play IS boring. I say - it's not. It can be, if there aren't enough players who are capable of working together to accomplish tasks. But that's the luck of the draw, and is true in all group situations, not specific to GMHs.

Quote from: manipura on December 25, 2015, 12:32:00 PM
...I really don't think anyone is fishing for some great, super-sekrit IC game info that you or your PC is valiantly guarding in game.  They're just discussing issues.

Edit: fixing quote-issues due to phone-typing being a pain.

And, it's been said it's being looked at and worked on, what more do you want? Sorry if I seem a little testy, my attention is divided and I didn't get much sleep.

And here is your proof:

Quote from: Nergal on December 25, 2015, 08:45:44 AM
As GMH admin, I'm not going to explain the depth of GMH conflict in a thread where the explanation will get lost due to the fact that posts are thrown into it like garbage, to be forgotten within days. I'm also not going to explain current or future-planned plots. Rest assured that we're accounting for it.

Also merry Githmas.

555, people can talk about this, it's ok.  A new thread to discuss GMH issues was encouraged by staff, lest any useful ideas be lost in the bowels of Random Armageddon Thoughts. 

So please do chill.  Merry Githmas.

In my opinion, the lack of built-in sources of conflict for GMHs is acceptable (but not ideal) if there is an acceptable amount of staff-started, player-driven conflict in its place. I had a long time to think about this: first as a storyteller for House Kurac/the Guild/another clan I don't even feel comfortable naming yet because it's specifically a clan put in place to cause conflict, and then secondly as the Admin for the GMH team overall.

The idea that GMH conflict has to be centered around the retail end of each House is somewhat lacking in depth. I have experimented so far with three different ways that GMH clans can cause conflict. #1 was arguably a success, as it caused conflict and is still ongoing in its ways. I would consider it "built-in" at this point. #2 & #3 are in-progress and are going well so far. There is plenty more potential for GMH conflict in the avenues of rare resource procurement, transportation of goods, and competition for employees. These are all things I am more willing to experiment with than what a GMH does or doesn't sell.

Quote from: Lizzie on December 25, 2015, 12:35:28 PM
This thread was inspired when D-man posted about why GMH play is boring.

My opinion is that the entire reasoning is (probably unintentionally) a strawman, because it's based on the presumption that GMH play IS boring. I say - it's not. It can be, if there aren't enough players who are capable of working together to accomplish tasks. But that's the luck of the draw, and is true in all group situations, not specific to GMHs.

Merchant house probably is boring at times to D-mans credit.

But Byn play can be boring... Damn byn schedule. Being by yourself, unclanned, can be dull too I assure you. You sit around and dont interact much or don't try to make it the experience you want, there's going to probably be lulls, and IMO it's not staff's responsibilty to make people's experience 100% conflict driven excitement. When I played as a gmh minion, I feel like I didn't get involved in some of it, and a tip to some leaders would be to trust peeps even if it a mistake sometimes and add character flaws that make more trouble to deal with.

Some dynamics like exclusive markets are part of the game world lore and shouldn't be whimsically changed, and probably won't be because staff has done a good job of making things work and be fun so far...

It would be great if both Salarr and Kadius weren't practically the same clan, with the biggest difference is one has a much better designed compound.

They both hire hunters, crafters then hunt, make stuff, sell it, rinse and repeat. You can practically merge these two clans together and you wouldn't be losing much since they both offer the same experience.

Maybe instead of competing for the same hunters, one clan (perhaps the one with a more awkward training facility) could instead employee more merchants, crafters and  then contract hunting/gathering work out, buy resources it needs from people who might be fed up with joining the same old clans. I know kurac does/did(?) this for a bit.  I thought it was great.


It instead of adding NPC that buys those heavy resources such as logs, perhaps one of the houses would always be willing to take it off your hands.

I've only played in a GMH for about 2 weeks with my second PC.  So consider that when reading this.

But from the outside, knowing lots of GMH PCs through the years...it seems like they're always embroiled in conflict, judging from the things my PCs are told.  Mostly internal conflict, it's true.

Is this not so?

My experience playing Kurac was that they have plenty to do and plenty of sources of conflict on account of selling a heavily restricted good and policing their own territory.  Can't speak to the others.

Quote from: Refugee on December 25, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
I've only played in a GMH for about 2 weeks with my second PC.  So consider that when reading this.

But from the outside, knowing lots of GMH PCs through the years...it seems like they're always embroiled in conflict, judging from the things my PCs are told.  Mostly internal conflict, it's true.

Is this not so?

I played some kid once who wanted to be in the Byn. He was too young and the Byn rejected him, so a Fale noble who was randomly there told him to go to Kadius. He became a Kadian hunter and got shipped north. There he had a lovely time chasing the young Tuluki girl around with bugs and making her scream. He was convinced he seduced some woman and was very proud of himself, never learning that she was a whore Kadius had thoughtfully and secretly hired for him. He also gave names of southern and northern nobles to the opposite sides. Life was good!

Until one day a Faithful told him to with her. He Wayed his southern boss, and she told him to run away. So he did. The other Kadians tried to get him to come out of the Estate, and the Second Hunter (southern) finally did, by promising to go with him... He didn't. And my little kid was never seen again.

What I didn't learn until years later was that behind the scenes the southern and northern Kadian Overseers HATED each other. Everyone in Kadius in the north assumed I had been sent down by her as a spy to figure out what she was doing. Meanwhile, the Faithful were trying to raise taxes on Friel's Rest (IIRC), which years ago had belonged solely to Kadius. My southern boss insisted that they still didn't own Friel's, and didn't want to pay--The Faithful didn't like her, and it meant hassle for the Kadian north.

My very oblivious PC was killed by the Faithful to send a message to my southern boss. Also, running from templars pisses them off. Cool death scene, though not knowing any of the background, I assumed the templar was PK happy. I didn't play any PCs anywhere near the north until after she was dead.

I was once pked by a couple of people. I thought something was really odd about the way they managed to co-ordinate in order to PK me. The staff told me everything was fine so I forgot about it. Later I found out that, there was indeed something oocly unfair about the people who pked me. Thats about as much context as I've ever gotten from being killed.  :-\

I don't know or talk with anyone here oocly, i don't have people on messenger or meet with others, and my characters are ICly very seperate from each other so I've never gotten to figure out why things have happened to previous character.

Just random people, killing my character for who knows what reasons.  Such is life though.  :)

/derail

I will agree that much of the conflict of GMH's is internal. Alot of the time, that conflict feels rather petty, to me at least, others probably feel different.

EDIT: On second thought, rather agreeable post deleted. Needs more negativity and hostility.

Since I first replied to Dman in the RAT, I'll reply to him again here:

Quote from: Desertman on December 25, 2015, 10:19:36 AM
I may never have been high enough up in a Merchant House to ever get to that incredibly covert House on House economic conflict driven by the lack of resources in a resource poor environment.

What I can tell you is I've never actually seen it as a player.......ever.

I have never once seen House Hunter B lead his/her group of hunters with the mindset that the hunters/merchants from House A are their competition.

It may happen and it's just so incredibly covert nobody ever hears about it and these House Hunters are so incredibly good at keeping secrets the secrets never ever get out to anyone.

But, then again, I think it's probably more likely that the conflict being spoken about is so high up the chain that most House employees never get to even experience it, so in reality, it is pointless on the front I am talking about......which is making conflict for House players from top to bottom....not just for the extremely sparing few who happen to break through to find out what's going on.

I have had similar experiences as a player. But one has to accept that their personal experience is only a small fraction of the over all activity going on in game. We are bursting with stories of ground level characters being used as tools by the powerful without ever knowing the reason behind what they are doing.

Quote from: Desertman on December 25, 2015, 10:19:36 AM
Also, while roads are made from oil and fuel is made from oil I can tell you that BIG 4 Road Construction does not consider Exxon Valdez a competitor, and they never compete.

That reasoning doesn't work for the same reason Wal-Mart doesn't compete with Target because clothes hangers are made from plastic and both deal in clothes hangers. They might compete in the "clothes hanger market", but they aren't competing for plastic. You know who is? The two companies who make plastic.
The reasons corporations compete, and this in my opinion translates to the game world, is because their end-game is the same.

Hamburgers and Steak are both made from cows, but McDonalds is not competing with five star high-end steak houses.....they just aren't in the same markets. They don't care about each other. Their end-game isn't the same.

This is untrue. The two companies in your example do not compete with one another directly, but they do compete with one another in attempting to secure a better deal than the other has from their suppliers.

For example, I work for an export company that specializes in automobiles and while we compete with other export companies that specialize in automobiles directly, we compete indirectly with every exporter in attempting to secure better freight rates with our shipping partners, who pit us against one another for space on their vessels to drive their own profits up.

It's complicated, but it's there, and as the Director for my geographic region, I spend equal time focused on my end user competition as I do on my supply chain competition because both are equally important to our bottom line.

Quote from: Desertman on December 25, 2015, 10:40:07 AM

Quote from: Jave on December 25, 2015, 03:51:12 AM

I think that if we made the GMH's all create the same goods rather than specializing in different areas we would have a nasty bloody war for about a RL month, and then one, one-stop GMH that made everything, and murdered every single indy group that ever tried to poke their head up to be competition again. --- Which would be even less entertaining than what we have now.

This is where you step in as a staffer and don't let "the armies go to war".

Staff can and should regulate this. Let the players drive their player-on-player conflict, but keep IC reasons in place with upper command to prevent the Houses from going to annihilation war. The only way such a war would happen is if staff allowed it to happen and orchestrated it.

We both know players can't wipe out Houses without staff helping them, and in reality, doing it.

Give the upper command the mindset that a few hunters and merchants (the PC's) going the way of the dodo from time to time through House conflict in the field is an expected and acceptable cost of doing business.

"Yes First Hunter? You say one of House Salarr's hundreds of hunters killed one of ours? What do you want me to do about it? Fuck off First Hunter. I am busy and doing very important things. You take care of this shit yourself. Don't come to me every time you take a piss either. For fuck's sake. Be a leader and fuck their shit up right back or I will get someone with a spine.".

This keeps them from IC'ly going to war to wipe each other out and keeps an avenue open for players to compete with each other on the economic front in a meaningful top to bottom way.

The only way it would result in what you are saying it would result in is if staff did it. Players literally can't.

As for these GMH's murdering every single indy group in game, you can easily remedy this too. Preach the mindset from upper command that a House with thousands of employees and multiple compounds throughout the world simply doesn't care about the tiny flea on the back of the tiny insect that is comparably these indy groups. It would be like a noble going into the rinth to find that one rinther who owns a silk bracelet to cut their throat for the world to see because they are, "trying to be a noble like me!!!!". Explain it is goofy and silly and makes no IC sense, so don't do it. What can you do? Tax those indy groups for your own PC to PC personal gain in wealth. Utilize them as your merchant House leader to better your own personal goals. Every goal you have doesn't have to be a House-goal. Use them to help facilitate your own personal wealth or use them to help your own personal agenda....and if they won't play ball.....then annihilate them for not bending to your whims (not because you are pretending them selling baskets is ruining your House's market).

When we do as you suggest here we are immediately painted as playing favorites, and trying to railroad PC's into a pre-determined outcome for reasoning ranging from spite, to having a pet avatar in the clan we're protecting, to having beef with the players involved.

It is true that players cannot wipe out an entire GMH without staff support in theory. But they don't need staff support to do it in practice. They just have to murder every single new PC who tries to join a competing clan, thus rendering all other clans virtual, and largely inaccessible to the player base on a day to day level. -- And when we try to step in and remedy this, see above.

I always promoted peer justice for the old "Your hunter killed mine" scenarios.

Not that they happened, most of the shit in Kadius back in the day was revolving around magicker infiltration and crafter poaching.

There is a lot of conflict between the GMHs in my personal opinion, but unless you are in the GMH's and not some scrub you might never know it.

The lower levels GMH employees may really hate each other but as you get higher I believe you're not really that interested in eliminating your peers, but just getting the better of them. You don't always want to kill a rival more inept than you. Their replacement might be more competent than you. That doesn't mean that it is not encouraged for low level employees to despise, malign, or murder other low level employees. I think this is what desertman considers the cost of doing business and also a way for low level employees to demonstrate their loyalty and competence. If you get into a public squabble with the other House's employees that's probably you just blowing off steam. Any real killings should be done quietly with no one ever finding out. Getting rid of them might be okay, getting caught is not.

Played in Kadius as a hunter, a First Hunter, a Merchant.
Played in Salarr as Expansion division, Sergeant, Corporal, merchant.
Never really played in Kurac cause of personal taste.

I've never had a GMH pc that wasn't involved in MCB, murdering superiors for promotion, assassinations, murdering troublesome underlings, even full blown kadius on salarri brawls in the desert, maybe it's cause I shake shit up. If they're isn't enough conflict for your liking you're doing it wrong. #getgud #mcb

Also, if you're not in a GMH. Chances are you just aren't privy to the sly shit going on, most conflict isn't in your face or advertised.

Last time I was in Kadius (and I never stir shit up on my own) there was a _ton_ of conflict, and I spent most of my time there as a recruit so I didn't see as much.

The first time I was there it was much calmer, but this was at a point where most other merchant house people weren't around and the templarate was busy with something else. The others that made up Kadius also didn't seem to be interested in more than a normal-ish amount of conflict either (telling me their small secrets, etc.) But it only really takes one person to start conflict. (Loosely related) I still remember Jarls because he killed a number of notable and tough pcs and attempted to kill at least one more. That guy started a world of conflict by himself.

I like what I've seen in game recently. It seems well thought out to provide an ideal type and source of conflict with a lot of power given to the players in how they handle it (with appropriate pushbacks I'm assuming) and with plenty of opportunities for nuance and side plots. Simple on the surface with tons of potential if just a few people pick up the ball and run with it.

I don't really have any comment on the rest of this because the past is the past.

Plan #3 that I was referring to in my first post in this thread has culminated into this: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50315.msg918933.html#new

My hope is that it will encourage increased conflict in the form of competition, both internally (proving you're the best employee) and externally (poaching employees from other clans when their contract is up).

Quote from: Saellyn on December 28, 2015, 09:21:24 AM
I dunno how I feel about staff taking away power from PC leaders by removing their ability to grant life oaths. It kind of... I dunno. I really don't see how this 'expands' options for anyone.

This is a wonderful change, and I think it creates far more for the game than it removed.

• It gives access to more in depth roles in the GMHs to PCs who would have been previously discouraged by having those roles be lifesworn.
• It creates more opportunity for conflict because now any potential leader PC can see someone in a GMH uniform and know they're still potential employees because they are not completely beholden to the House that employs them.
• It gives leader PCs more incentive to create interest for their employees because they no longer have the comfort of knowing no matter how bored that employee is, his only recourse would be storage, death, or being hunted as a traitor.
  
• It creates a much lower barrier to entry for a PC considering joining a GMH, because they no longer have to worry about being press ganged into life swearing, so if they don't enjoy the experience they can quit when their contract's up and move on to another role with the same character.

So is there a new benefit to taking a life oath? It used to be, to get into a position of authority, you had to take a life oath. That's now no longer the case, I imagine, so then what is the benefit of taking up a life oath in a GMH?

Um, all of the kajillion other benefits of having the backing of a massive merchant house ... FOR LIFE.

You used to have to life-swear just to be a basic level employee, much less in a position of authority.

I'm very glad to see this change, I love how many opportunities this opens up. Life swearing had a stifling effect on clans.

Quote from: Saellyn on December 28, 2015, 09:59:08 AM
So is there a new benefit to taking a life oath? It used to be, to get into a position of authority, you had to take a life oath. That's now no longer the case, I imagine, so then what is the benefit of taking up a life oath in a GMH?

- Secures your position in a clan for life.
- Offers a path toward adoption into the House as a family member with signet ring, last name, and the nifty -di/-da thing for Kurac. (may also come with marriage).
- Significantly more coveted than it was previously, because it is rare.
- Now life oaths aren't a requirement for being promoted to a certain rank in the clan (except for family-level ranks).

Keeping in mind as well that just because you can't take an "Official House Backed Life Oath" from one of your employees, that doesn't mean you can't take an unofficial one from them.

There are just some things you do in a House where you know that for as long as that leader you did it with is alive....you can never leave.

Noble Lord FatPants has you assassinate Lord Templar StickInButt for him, and you do it.....there may not be any sort of official lifesworn oath involved, but let's be honest.....Noble Lord FatPants is never letting you go alive because you now have the dirt/the secrets to ruin him.

I've played leaders before where I didn't take life oaths exactly, but I brought people in with me so deep that we knew we would always have to be together.

I've played leaders before as well where there were no official terms of service in regards to length of employment, but I made them agree with me on a personal level that, "If I do this for you, you are mine for X amount of time, and if you break that contract with me, the House/Company won't have an issue with it, but I will come for you personally. Agreed?".......I never once had them not agree.

This isn't a rule saying, "You can't force someone into life service to you.", it is a rule saying, "The House won't officially back your bullshit, but if your dick is big enough, you can personally enforce your life minions.".

(Let's be honest, if you are in any position to actually hire minions, your dick SHOULD be big enough to rule them through fear, if nothing else. However, you are more likely to get useful unofficial lifesworn minions through just being the sort of leader they never want to leave. Bring them into the rabbit hole with you so deep that they know they are part of your most trusted circle, and they won't ever want to leave that circle. You will be providing them with too much fun.)

I like it.

I like this Change.

Quote from: Jave on December 25, 2015, 11:13:00 PM

Quote from: Desertman on December 25, 2015, 10:40:07 AM

Quote from: Jave on December 25, 2015, 03:51:12 AM

I think that if we made the GMH's all create the same goods rather than specializing in different areas we would have a nasty bloody war for about a RL month, and then one, one-stop GMH that made everything, and murdered every single indy group that ever tried to poke their head up to be competition again. --- Which would be even less entertaining than what we have now.

This is where you step in as a staffer and don't let "the armies go to war".

Staff can and should regulate this. Let the players drive their player-on-player conflict, but keep IC reasons in place with upper command to prevent the Houses from going to annihilation war. The only way such a war would happen is if staff allowed it to happen and orchestrated it.

We both know players can't wipe out Houses without staff helping them, and in reality, doing it.

Give the upper command the mindset that a few hunters and merchants (the PC's) going the way of the dodo from time to time through House conflict in the field is an expected and acceptable cost of doing business.

"Yes First Hunter? You say one of House Salarr's hundreds of hunters killed one of ours? What do you want me to do about it? Fuck off First Hunter. I am busy and doing very important things. You take care of this shit yourself. Don't come to me every time you take a piss either. For fuck's sake. Be a leader and fuck their shit up right back or I will get someone with a spine.".

This keeps them from IC'ly going to war to wipe each other out and keeps an avenue open for players to compete with each other on the economic front in a meaningful top to bottom way.

The only way it would result in what you are saying it would result in is if staff did it. Players literally can't.

As for these GMH's murdering every single indy group in game, you can easily remedy this too. Preach the mindset from upper command that a House with thousands of employees and multiple compounds throughout the world simply doesn't care about the tiny flea on the back of the tiny insect that is comparably these indy groups. It would be like a noble going into the rinth to find that one rinther who owns a silk bracelet to cut their throat for the world to see because they are, "trying to be a noble like me!!!!". Explain it is goofy and silly and makes no IC sense, so don't do it. What can you do? Tax those indy groups for your own PC to PC personal gain in wealth. Utilize them as your merchant House leader to better your own personal goals. Every goal you have doesn't have to be a House-goal. Use them to help facilitate your own personal wealth or use them to help your own personal agenda....and if they won't play ball.....then annihilate them for not bending to your whims (not because you are pretending them selling baskets is ruining your House's market).

When we do as you suggest here we are immediately painted as playing favorites, and trying to railroad PC's into a pre-determined outcome for reasoning ranging from spite, to having a pet avatar in the clan we're protecting, to having beef with the players involved.

It is true that players cannot wipe out an entire GMH without staff support in theory. But they don't need staff support to do it in practice. They just have to murder every single new PC who tries to join a competing clan, thus rendering all other clans virtual, and largely inaccessible to the player base on a day to day level. -- And when we try to step in and remedy this, see above.

I'm fairly sure that these clans wouldn't be able to wipe out entire crews in game without drawing the attention of law enforcement.

However, if they do manage to cleanly wipe out the players in every single other clan in the game without being caught a single time every single time for eternity....they will have won the game.

I just don't think that will happen.

They might wipe out a few players here and there cleanly, but just as often they will fail their assassination attempts and Templars will get involved (PC Templars), and herds will get culled and the circle of life will go on.

You are suggesting that a single clan of players without staff support would be able to infinitely wipe out every other player in every clan in the game and have the political clout IC'ly to never once step on their own dicks for all time.

I just don't see that happening. Will there be ups and downs in the balance of the PC on PC power front? Absolutely. Will there be certain times where one clan appears to be running such a strong PC crew that they are "winning"?

Absolutely. But what's wrong with letting them win for a while? They built an awesome PC crew and the leader has done a great job. Maybe you should just let them win for a little while and enjoy the benefits of their hard work. Maybe not forever, but for a little while? Sure. It is an incentive for others to come along and do the same thing themselves.

But if Armageddon has taught me one thing, it's that getting powerful and getting well known ALWAYS eventually breeds enemies who come after you for no other reason than they want to be the ones to knock you off your throne. It happens every time eventually.

Now, in the extremely unlikely scenario that such a PC crew is created in game who can infinitely rule the game world through attrition on a global scale, then I believe staff should step in and make life a little hard for them to rebalance The Matrix.

How often will that have to happen though?

I think it's a non-issue.

Edited to Add: Also keep in mind that a bloodbath isn't the only end-game either. I would wager that JUST as often as two crews go to war on the PC to PC front with each other, two leaders will see the wisdom in forming an unofficial alliance that will last a long time to the mutual benefit of both crews. Then just as often one will betray the other, so on and so forth, and the circle of life/death continues.

Now, alliances would seem to suggest going back towards the same old system we have now where everyone apparently agrees to play nice to keep their monopolies in balance. It's not. The difference here is the alliances are happening on the PC to PC front and will only stay in play for as long as the PC's in game nurture them/stay alive to keep them intact.

In my opinion, that's a much better system that puts more power into the hands of the players and makes things  a lot less stagnant.

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 08:49:46 AM
Plan #3 that I was referring to in my first post in this thread has culminated into this: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50315.msg918933.html#new

My hope is that it will encourage increased conflict in the form of competition, both internally (proving you're the best employee) and externally (poaching employees from other clans when their contract is up).

Also, this is the shit.

Quote from: Jave on December 25, 2015, 11:06:53 PM
Since I first replied to Dman in the RAT, I'll reply to him again here:

Quote from: Desertman on December 25, 2015, 10:19:36 AM
I may never have been high enough up in a Merchant House to ever get to that incredibly covert House on House economic conflict driven by the lack of resources in a resource poor environment.

What I can tell you is I've never actually seen it as a player.......ever.

I have never once seen House Hunter B lead his/her group of hunters with the mindset that the hunters/merchants from House A are their competition.

It may happen and it's just so incredibly covert nobody ever hears about it and these House Hunters are so incredibly good at keeping secrets the secrets never ever get out to anyone.

But, then again, I think it's probably more likely that the conflict being spoken about is so high up the chain that most House employees never get to even experience it, so in reality, it is pointless on the front I am talking about......which is making conflict for House players from top to bottom....not just for the extremely sparing few who happen to break through to find out what's going on.

I have had similar experiences as a player. But one has to accept that their personal experience is only a small fraction of the over all activity going on in game. We are bursting with stories of ground level characters being used as tools by the powerful without ever knowing the reason behind what they are doing.

Quote from: Desertman on December 25, 2015, 10:19:36 AM
Also, while roads are made from oil and fuel is made from oil I can tell you that BIG 4 Road Construction does not consider Exxon Valdez a competitor, and they never compete.

That reasoning doesn't work for the same reason Wal-Mart doesn't compete with Target because clothes hangers are made from plastic and both deal in clothes hangers. They might compete in the "clothes hanger market", but they aren't competing for plastic. You know who is? The two companies who make plastic.
The reasons corporations compete, and this in my opinion translates to the game world, is because their end-game is the same.

Hamburgers and Steak are both made from cows, but McDonalds is not competing with five star high-end steak houses.....they just aren't in the same markets. They don't care about each other. Their end-game isn't the same.

This is untrue. The two companies in your example do not compete with one another directly, but they do compete with one another in attempting to secure a better deal than the other has from their suppliers.

For example, I work for an export company that specializes in automobiles and while we compete with other export companies that specialize in automobiles directly, we compete indirectly with every exporter in attempting to secure better freight rates with our shipping partners, who pit us against one another for space on their vessels to drive their own profits up.

It's complicated, but it's there, and as the Director for my geographic region, I spend equal time focused on my end user competition as I do on my supply chain competition because both are equally important to our bottom line.

How often do the guys on the ground floor know about or even give a shit about any of that in your company?

Sure, you know about it. You are high enough up the chain to care about it.

How much does the guy throwing boxes around the warehouse (The House Hunter?) care about what you are seeing and how often does it provide conflict for them on an economic scale?

You are just pointing out exactly what I'm saying. The extremely high-end portion of the employment chain knows about and is involved in this conflict. The actual "players" aren't. They never see it, and really, they don't give a shit because they never see it.

You are describing the difference between two guys fighting each other in Home Depot over the last rake on the shelf in the State, and two CEO's looking at charts in their offices and shuffling some numbers around to make a difference in the final decimals in the production line.

Are both conflict and competition for resources through strategy? Absolutely.

Is one a lot more fun than the other for the actual people on the ground (the players)? Absolutely.

If you told me you wanted me to play a game and one game was the guy moving around decimals in his office to edge out economic competitors and get ahead of them, and the other was two guys fighting over a rake on the ground floor in Home Depot...I would pic Rake Wars every time. Why? Because it's a lot more fun.


Either way, we are both just arguing complete hypotheticals at this point for a system that doesn't and probably never will exist.

All I'm saying is we have seen the outcome of the current system. Sometimes it is jumping, and a lot of times you can't beat people into taking roles for any meaningful length of time in the House.

I've IC'ly been involved in plots designed for no other reason than to try and put people in those Houses because those Houses couldn't attract players.

I'm just trying to be helpful by telling you what I would personally enjoy as a player and what I believe other players would also enjoy. If nothing else I hope you guys see some of the ideas and even if you don't take them all, consider them on some level and use them maybe to come up with your own ideas (probably even better ideas considering you have the staff vantage point of view I don't have).

I'm just the guy who plays the game and tries to make the game fun for other people without having any staff powers. This is my opinion based on that experience. This is the sort of thing I have seen that people like in game, or at least the people who have played with me personally.

I don't care for the change all that much. I think that current lifesworn should be grandfathered in if they choose.

For me personally it added an element of trust where you could get those players in the know right away. Now I may be more stingy with information which isn't fun.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 11:55:08 AM
I don't care for the change all that much. I think that current lifesworn should be grandfathered in if they choose.

For me personally it added an element of trust where you could get those players in the know right away. Now I may be more stingy with information which isn't fun.

I didn't consider currently lifesworn PC's.

Are they just becoming un-lifesworn?

Hmmm.

Quote from: Desertman on December 28, 2015, 11:07:11 AM

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 08:49:46 AM
Plan #3 that I was referring to in my first post in this thread has culminated into this: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50315.msg918933.html#new

My hope is that it will encourage increased conflict in the form of competition, both internally (proving you're the best employee) and externally (poaching employees from other clans when their contract is up).

Also, this is the shit.

I concur.

Quote from: Desertman on December 28, 2015, 11:58:40 AM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 11:55:08 AM
I don't care for the change all that much. I think that current lifesworn should be grandfathered in if they choose.

For me personally it added an element of trust where you could get those players in the know right away. Now I may be more stingy with information which isn't fun.

I didn't consider currently lifesworn PC's.

Are they just becoming un-lifesworn?

Hmmm.

For the most part, yes. Though that doesn't mean they can't be life-oathed again by the House.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 11:55:08 AM
I don't care for the change all that much. I think that current lifesworn should be grandfathered in if they choose.

For me personally it added an element of trust where you could get those players in the know right away. Now I may be more stingy with information which isn't fun.

I didn't feel that, in the long term, it benefited the "field of conflict" to have a class of employees that could be implicitly trusted with information because they could be killed for trying to share it or for trying to leave the House.

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 12:48:04 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 11:55:08 AM
I don't care for the change all that much. I think that current lifesworn should be grandfathered in if they choose.

For me personally it added an element of trust where you could get those players in the know right away. Now I may be more stingy with information which isn't fun.

I didn't feel that, in the long term, it benefited the "field of conflict" to have a class of employees that could be implicitly trusted with information because they could be killed for trying to share it or leave the House.

Hey -- no horse in this debate, but I like reading, and I couldn't parse your sentence, Nergal.  I'm probably missing something.  Are you saying:

having a class of employees (lifesworn) didn't benefit the field of conflict, and here's why:

o they are implicitly trusted with information

Why are they implicitly trusted with information?

o because they either (a) could be killed for trying to share it or (b) leave the house...

---

I do like the point that conflict suffers when you have a class or group that is implicitly trusted (cf. tribes in the wilderness vs. lonefoot elves in the rinth).

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 12:48:04 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 11:55:08 AM
I don't care for the change all that much. I think that current lifesworn should be grandfathered in if they choose.

For me personally it added an element of trust where you could get those players in the know right away. Now I may be more stingy with information which isn't fun.

I didn't feel that, in the long term, it benefited the "field of conflict" to have a class of employees that could be implicitly trusted with information because they could be killed for trying to share it or leave the House.

What? There's people that can be implicitly trusted?! Or ever fully trusted, like, ever? News to me, I must find them.

Edited my post to be clearer, but life-oathed people could have been implicitly trusted because they (a) could be killed for trying to share information or (b) could be killed for trying to leave the house with the information.

I feel like this is a good change. In my experience, there's people who 'try out' merchant houses, and get stuck in the clan compound and don't really have a stake/presence outside of it anymore. When that burns out, they can't really leave. Plus there was no true draw from outside to pull them away, because of the low-tier life oath and the mutual understanding that trying to recruit someone out from under a GMH was more trouble than it's worth.

In this case, with people staying more as contracted agents, I think it helps the whole dynamic.

Nice!

I now want to attempt the achievement of trying out every single Houses with the same character.

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 01:04:06 PM
Edited my post to be clearer, but life-oathed people could have been implicitly trusted because they (a) could be killed for trying to share information or (b) could be killed for trying to leave the house with the information.

Is this no longer true?  I doubt it.  I'm quite sure they can still be killed for either (a) or (b) or even (c) none of the above.  So what has changed is the employee's security of being life sworn.  It's something those PCs strived for and earned. 

While this is a reasonable change for those "in the pipe" I would be very disappointed if I was a life-sworn employee for a half-dozen years and suddenly I'm told that I'm not.  Those folks didn't make the decision lightly.

One vote for grandfathering in the old lifesworn PCs, unless something is horribly wrong with the clan and there are no PCs to be lifesworn with.

 

Of course, PCs can always be killed. I doubt anyone will argue otherwise.

However, the idea that a PC can be trusted with information because they are life-sworn is dispelled. There are now other real factors at play when a leader has to decide who to trust, or who not to trust.

As far as current life-sworn employees in GMHs, the opportunity is open to those who wish to preserve their oath. There's nothing being taken away that they can't earn back with a reassessment.

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 01:52:28 PM
Of course, PCs can always be killed. I doubt anyone will argue otherwise.

However, the idea that a PC can be trusted with information because they are life-sworn is dispelled. There are now other real factors at play when a leader has to decide who to trust, or who not to trust.

As far as current life-sworn employees in GMHs, the opportunity is open to those who wish to preserve their oath. There's nothing being taken away that they can't earn back with a reassessment.

This is only true in human only leadership GMH.

I'd think greater reasons to trust someone enough to clue them in on the details would be the perceived character and motives of the PC in question, to be decided on an individual basis. Lifesworn simply means they weren't "allowed" to leave the house, which is kind of a pain in the rump when someone isn't happy and would like to pursue other options, and is in good enough standing and well trusted enough to keep their mouth shut about some things, and this simply puts more options on your plate when dealing with subordinates, as well as providing incentive to not be a dick to the help, and keep them happy.

I personally think these changes are intended to make the GMHs effectively interchangeable. It used to be more complicated, especially with the closure of Tuluk,in regard to which GMH had what in terms of geography, politics, and products. This is frustrating in that it benefits two of the GMHs a lot more because they already are effectively interchangeable and are gifted advantages in geography to make them more competitive while the third house will never be similarly gifted an equivalent advantage in terms of product and politics in the current game world.

I also don't like how it effectively destroys and craps on any lifesworn customs and culture than may have sprung up. I think if you take away a perk you should add another perk such as open up one Outrider, Expansion Division, or Falcon? spot.

If a single cronie can take you out with your SEKRITS then that's just poor planning on the part of PC leadership.  Life swearing being the barrier for entry to plots is a poor way to play this game.  Take risks and bring more people in.  Yea, they could try to fuck you over, but if you KNOW that going in, maybe leaders will plan better and get better contingencies in place to cover their asses.

That being said, a lifeoath has never kept me from murder/corruption/betraying my superiors when it made sense for my character.  Infact, I've probably experienced and committed more betrayals involving lifeoaths than I have without.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 02:29:03 PM
I personally think these changes are intended to make the GMHs effectively interchangeable.

I completely disagree with this.

Salarr and Kadius are somewhat similar, but both have very different goals and ways to achieve those goals as well as holdings, culture, and history.

Kurac is an entirely different beast.  Kurac is the ONLY non-tribal clan in the game that is not in Allanak.  It's literally the only choice for non-tribal PCs who want the benefits of a large coded clan but do not want to play in Allanak.  I imagine this will make Kurac one of the most popular clans in the game despite any changes to how oaths work.  

the change to Lifeoaths will not detrimentally effect the GMHs in my opinion, quite the opposite, I think it will make them more appealing to know you can jump into a GMH without a lifeoath and have fun and be involved.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 02:29:03 PM
I personally think these changes are intended to make the GMHs effectively interchangeable. It used to be more complicated, especially with the closure of Tuluk,in regard to which GMH had what in terms of geography, politics, and products. This is frustrating in that it benefits two of the GMHs a lot more because they already are effectively interchangeable and are gifted advantages in geography to make them more competitive while the third house will never be similarly gifted an equivalent advantage in terms of product and politics in the current game world.

I also don't like how it effectively destroys and craps on any lifesworn customs and culture than may have sprung up. I think if you take away a perk you should add another perk such as open up one Outrider, Expansion Division, or Falcon? spot.

I, too, would like specialty divisions reopening. As far as one merchant house not having the pull or advantages of the others, whose fault is that? As far as I know all three have compounds in the major cities, but only one has a mega-fortified outpost with instant death all but ensured for any aggressive act whatsoever, or just being picked out and targeted for, reasons. I'd say that's a pretty hefty perk right there, while the other merchant houses have to expose themselves to the dangers of politics daily, one can completely insulate themselves from these pressures, and, if a merchant house wants more pull in the city, some PC representation in the city in question would do wonders, imo, as well as pull in business they otherwise might not get. Sure, it's not safe, you expose your people to some good old fashioned MCB, but that's the entry fee.

This "change" really just seems to be formalizing something that had already been in place for awhile.

I've known plenty of characters that have left their GMH employment after their contract was over, and gone on to work for other organizations (maybe Kurac was different with this; Kadius and Salarr seemed pretty easygoing)...but the problem seems to have been that the "correct" way to do things was never clearly documented, and now it is.  So that is good.

Kurac is already pretty popular. I think they may have to work harder to stay that way, since they can no longer slap a life oath on anyone with a pulse and a skill timer and keep them in the Outpost. Or not; Kurac is a pretty sweet gig if that's the kind of game you want to play.

I do think this puts a little more onus on PC Leadership to Lead and make their clans interesting. PC Leadership of all GMH is going to have to engage their underlings and make them want to stay in their clan and earn that lifesworn position. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is going to depend on the individual leaders and how they want to play.

Having more visibility into the roadmap for what Nergal has planned for GMHs, this change will both increase conflict and make GMHs more interesting to play, simultaneously - even if you don't see it, yet.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 01:56:02 PM

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 01:52:28 PM
Of course, PCs can always be killed. I doubt anyone will argue otherwise.

However, the idea that a PC can be trusted with information because they are life-sworn is dispelled. There are now other real factors at play when a leader has to decide who to trust, or who not to trust.

As far as current life-sworn employees in GMHs, the opportunity is open to those who wish to preserve their oath. There's nothing being taken away that they can't earn back with a reassessment.

This is only true in human only leadership GMH.

Fair enough. If a side-effect of this change is that race relationships are more properly enforced, then all the better.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 02:29:03 PM
I personally think these changes are intended to make the GMHs effectively interchangeable. It used to be more complicated, especially with the closure of Tuluk,in regard to which GMH had what in terms of geography, politics, and products. This is frustrating in that it benefits two of the GMHs a lot more because they already are effectively interchangeable and are gifted advantages in geography to make them more competitive while the third house will never be similarly gifted an equivalent advantage in terms of product and politics in the current game world.

I also don't like how it effectively destroys and craps on any lifesworn customs and culture than may have sprung up. I think if you take away a perk you should add another perk such as open up one Outrider, Expansion Division, or Falcon? spot.

These options aren't off the table - I'm just giving the change more than 8 hours to breathe before I start making more significant decisions for GMH direction.

I completely disagree that GMHs will be interchangeable - each clan still has its unique focuses and interests, both merchantly and politically. I wouldn't have made this change if I felt that it would hobble one particular House or give one House a significant advantage over the other two. I've already expounded on my reasoning, so I won't reiterate. However, this decision was far from arbitrary. It was made to fix things that were broken and add something that was largely missing. I would not have made the change on a whim or if I thought the current players in GMHs wouldn't be able to adjust.

I think if the Outriders, Expansion Division, and the Falcons opened up, that would create some innate GMH conflict. 2-3 max per House, and they live somewhere between the Agent and Hunter branch.

Nothing says "war over materials" like 6 buff dudes slaughtering each other in the best gear ever made out in the desert. They'd be like gladiator champions, but in the desert.

That would be a sure way to get a hunter to want to life-swear, if he can become a Falcon or an Outrider.

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 02:52:58 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 28, 2015, 01:56:02 PM

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 01:52:28 PM
Of course, PCs can always be killed. I doubt anyone will argue otherwise.

However, the idea that a PC can be trusted with information because they are life-sworn is dispelled. There are now other real factors at play when a leader has to decide who to trust, or who not to trust.

As far as current life-sworn employees in GMHs, the opportunity is open to those who wish to preserve their oath. There's nothing being taken away that they can't earn back with a reassessment.

This is only true in human only leadership GMH.

Fair enough. If a side-effect of this change is that race relationships are more properly enforced, then all the better.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Pjr9bh5OUkgTe/giphy.gif)

Quote from: Asanadas on December 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
I think if the Outriders, Expansion Division, and the Falcons opened up, that would create some innate GMH conflict. 2-3 max per House, and they live somewhere between the Agent and Hunter branch.

Nothing says "war over materials" like 6 buff dudes slaughtering each other in the best gear ever made out in the desert. They'd be like gladiator champions, but in the desert.

That would be a sure way to get a hunter to want to life-swear, if he can become a Falcon or an Outrider.

I used to share this opinion until it occurred to me that opening 'Outriders' or whatever elite group would largely involve the PCs who would be in those groups doing what they already do, except they have different cloaks and a bigger footlocker and they skip out on training sessions.

Yes.  Things to aspire to are bad.

People like things like a cloak that says I'm the best and a title. Even if it was just that and nothing else it would be coveted in my opinion.

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM

Quote from: Asanadas on December 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
I think if the Outriders, Expansion Division, and the Falcons opened up, that would create some innate GMH conflict. 2-3 max per House, and they live somewhere between the Agent and Hunter branch.

Nothing says "war over materials" like 6 buff dudes slaughtering each other in the best gear ever made out in the desert. They'd be like gladiator champions, but in the desert.

That would be a sure way to get a hunter to want to life-swear, if he can become a Falcon or an Outrider.

I used to share this opinion until it occurred to me that opening 'Outriders' or whatever elite group would largely involve the PCs who would be in those groups doing what they already do, except they have different cloaks and a bigger footlocker and they skip out on training sessions.

Going to disagree with this.  Yea, on paper that's what it looks like, but in reality there's a strong desire for PCs to want to strive for those really difficult achievements.  Having that super cloak isn't what it's about, it's about showing others you put in the work to get that special cloak, that is what makes it so special.

Quote from: Ender on December 28, 2015, 04:01:21 PM

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM

Quote from: Asanadas on December 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
I think if the Outriders, Expansion Division, and the Falcons opened up, that would create some innate GMH conflict. 2-3 max per House, and they live somewhere between the Agent and Hunter branch.

Nothing says "war over materials" like 6 buff dudes slaughtering each other in the best gear ever made out in the desert. They'd be like gladiator champions, but in the desert.

That would be a sure way to get a hunter to want to life-swear, if he can become a Falcon or an Outrider.

I used to share this opinion until it occurred to me that opening 'Outriders' or whatever elite group would largely involve the PCs who would be in those groups doing what they already do, except they have different cloaks and a bigger footlocker and they skip out on training sessions.

Going to disagree with this.  Yea, on paper that's what it looks like, but in reality there's a strong desire for PCs to want to strive for those really difficult achievements.  Having that super cloak isn't what it's about, it's about showing others you put in the work to get that special cloak, that is what makes it so special.

Yeah, I want to kill one and take their special cloak!

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM

Quote from: Asanadas on December 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
I think if the Outriders, Expansion Division, and the Falcons opened up, that would create some innate GMH conflict. 2-3 max per House, and they live somewhere between the Agent and Hunter branch.

Nothing says "war over materials" like 6 buff dudes slaughtering each other in the best gear ever made out in the desert. They'd be like gladiator champions, but in the desert.

That would be a sure way to get a hunter to want to life-swear, if he can become a Falcon or an Outrider.

I used to share this opinion until it occurred to me that opening 'Outriders' or whatever elite group would largely involve the PCs who would be in those groups doing what they already do, except they have different cloaks and a bigger footlocker and they skip out on training sessions.

While this is true, just being able to say "I'm an Outrider" has a huge effect on how your character will be perceived.  And I think only allowing 1 person into this sort of rank, instead of 2-3, would be much better. However... This discussion feels tangential to me. I don't really see why these groups would need to be opened in light of this change.

Saying things like 'It contributes nothing to the game' is bad.  Because that thing in particular already did contribute something to the game for a lot of people.

You call it the same thing as the mercenary squad.  I point out that it was used entirely differently, literally as a small, elite group that operated separate from the mercenaries on long-lived scouting missions and free-roaming investigations.  Mercenaries followed the schedule and were the brute force.  Outriders were self-starters who only really relied on each other, and so while loyal to the house, regarded the mercs as unreliable.  Mercs regarded them as assholes, but were also glad to see them.  Caravan Guard were in charge of all escorts and mobile security.  These were distinct branches that worked both together and separately.  There are also more differentiations than that, as I'm sure you're aware.  These differentiations used to be commonplace in clans.

It was not 'just a title and bigger locker'.  It was specialization of your character.  It was what they worked towards.  Some became leaders of the dun-cloaked.  Some took on the outrider cloak.  Some took on the Caravan duster.  To say that the differentiation was 'unnecessary' is taking one viewpoint of the game to the max, which is 'if you're not doing what everyone else is doing, you're not contributing to everyone's fun'.  However...there was also plenty of fun to be had when it existed.  It encouraged different mentalities in the same clans.  It was good.

Altogether, the school of thought of 'less options means more participation' has always been a flawed one to me.  I want more clans open, even if they go through phases of inactivity.  I want more options for people.  I want more avenues for prestige or infamy.  I want even small groups of PC's to be trying to muscle their interests into things, even if other clans are far larger.  I want interests pulling in all different directions at all times.  That simply doesn't happen when you have less niches available to be filled.

While I was a fan of Tuluk closing, I also think it was only a good move in tandem with more options elsewhere opening up.  With the above mentality, all that it became was a further closing down of niches and options and avenues.  Granted, I make do, because my PC's tend to be long lived, but I do know that I don't want my military PC's to be on a 3 clan rotation, particularly where I may not want to play in certain places, as a player.  So this little blurb went on awhile, but I just wanted to say...while you call that a realization, I disagree.  I call that an illusion, based on the single bit of data of 'how much people are forced into interaction'.  That doesn't make it more fun than the alternative.

Edit:  Since the above is going off of a minor derail, and Valeria's post made me realize it...I do think, for GMH's in particular, lifesworn roles would be pretty uncommon and specialized.  So this is a good change, and hopefully ends up in them competing for hunters with each other.  Like free agents in a sport, heh.

I'm not usually much of one for change and I'm usually dragged into it kicking and screaming... but I like this one.  It definitely makes GMH life more attractive to me.

I wouldn't mind seeing longer contracts for higher ranks, like maybe like a 3-year max as you're actually getting into leadership (which plays out to being a couple of months), or maybe a required notice to quit (not renewing next year?  must let us know this year), because nobody wants a corporal+ equivalent to just bork right off.  But overall, I think seriously reducing life-oathing is a good change.

Quote from: Armaddict on December 28, 2015, 04:11:10 PM
Saying things like 'It contributes nothing to the game' is bad.  Because that thing in particular already did contribute something to the game for a lot of people.

I did a quick search of the thread above, and nobody said that.  That's all I wanted to say; you may continue -- I agree with all your points otherwise.  In my view: if it makes people want to log in, and there's no administrative overhead, generates MCB, and it makes sense in the game world, then, yeah, probably a good thing.  (*cough* halflings *cough*)

Quote from: nauta on December 28, 2015, 04:17:32 PM

Quote from: Armaddict on December 28, 2015, 04:11:10 PM
Saying things like 'It contributes nothing to the game' is bad.  Because that thing in particular already did contribute something to the game for a lot of people.

I did a quick search of the thread above, and nobody said that.  That's all I wanted to say; you may continue -- I agree with all your points otherwise.  In my view: if it makes people want to log in, and there's no administrative overhead, generates MCB, and it makes sense in the game world, then, yeah, probably a good thing.  (*cough* halflings *cough*)

QuoteI used to share this opinion until it occurred to me that opening 'Outriders' or whatever elite group would largely involve the PCs who would be in those groups doing what they already do, except they have different cloaks and a bigger footlocker and they skip out on training sessions.

It's paraphrasing.  That's what I read out of it.  Such seems to say it's unnecessary and a non-contributing factor.  It has, over the years, though, been said about various clans and roles, notably with noble military wings.

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 28, 2015, 03:50:53 PM

Quote from: Asanadas on December 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
I think if the Outriders, Expansion Division, and the Falcons opened up, that would create some innate GMH conflict. 2-3 max per House, and they live somewhere between the Agent and Hunter branch.

Nothing says "war over materials" like 6 buff dudes slaughtering each other in the best gear ever made out in the desert. They'd be like gladiator champions, but in the desert.

That would be a sure way to get a hunter to want to life-swear, if he can become a Falcon or an Outrider.

I used to share this opinion until it occurred to me that opening 'Outriders' or whatever elite group would largely involve the PCs who would be in those groups doing what they already do, except they have different cloaks and a bigger footlocker and they skip out on training sessions.

People love flair and perks. They allow us to customize our characters and better control how we spend our playtimes. Specialized titles and rewards like cloaks, weapons, and mounts are also useful carrots for PC Leaders to dangle over their minions, especially in clans where the vast majority of the minions are of generally the same rank. They're something to reward players with who put the time and effort in to distinguish their character.

*devil's advocate*
Everyone should get their own personalized clan and personalized cloak with badges!  No clan should have more than 2 people, and all clans should have a clan of guards, who should also have their own clan of guards!

*/derail nergalthread*

Feedback baaaad.

Feedback isn't bad, however people who give it should make the effort to be measured and somewhat realistic. Like I said before, it's not out of the question to reevaluate other positions in GMHs and make them matter more, and give PCs a place in those positions. However it can't just be slapped together or it will lose meaning and fail. It needs to be done correctly and it needs to be planned out, and it's beyond the scope of what has been done so far. This thread was originally for drumming up thoughts on GMH conflict, and hopefully it will continue to be.

I'll be honest, a staff member mocking player input and discussion with sarcastic hyperbole is not a thing that gives me the warm fuzzies.

I'm on the fence about whether special perks are needed, but I will say that having something to strive for that is meaningful and creates new opportunities is never a bad thing.

Example time: If Shatuka hadn't been striving toward Outrider (her potential partners kept dying!) I can guarantee you I would have gotten bored and stagnated, no matter how many interesting plots I whipped up. Why?  Because at Sergeant, I'd topped out the glass ceiling and the only other movement was toward a more specialized, lateral unit - but one that happened to fit her and her abilities and her goals extremely well.

But, if all the unit is, in staff's eyes, "a special patch and a nicer footlocker", then yeah, the purpose and options open for those units needs to be revised. But that's not the fault of the players.

Nerdgal, does this mean that/can there start being more of a focus on "recommendations" from groups in game? Back in .... MY... day. Where I still couldn't RP for shit, having Byn Training meant that your Sergeant would basically vouch that, indeed, you did "follow rules for a year and weren't a headache". I VAGUELY remember contract lengths being like "If you spend three years in Salarr... woohoo. If you spend seven though, we'll give you a recommendation if you leave" and I remember thinking it was one of the best parts of clan life.

Sure, back then you would basically have been a Cadet for seven years, but if you were a headache and your boss said "Actually they're kind of a dingus, regardless of how much time they've had with us" I thought that'd carry weight.

With Life Oaths more rare, and terms of service being more the norm, maybe this can be a little more structured again?

Agree w/ Desertman

Quote from: Nergal on December 28, 2015, 05:12:00 PM
Feedback isn't bad, however people who give it should make the effort to be measured and somewhat realistic. Like I said before, it's not out of the question to reevaluate other positions in GMHs and make them matter more, and give PCs a place in those positions. However it can't just be slapped together or it will lose meaning and fail. It needs to be done correctly and it needs to be planned out, and it's beyond the scope of what has been done so far. This thread was originally for drumming up thoughts on GMH conflict, and hopefully it will continue to be.

I think this is where the divide is.  Players remember those specialized units as ways to drum up both internal and external conflict.  Many of us remember them fondly, and I remember as a leader certainly using the potential of joining those specialized units to create competition among my underlings, even if I knew none of them would ever likely achieve it.  I don't see this as players demanding these things open up, they're just providing feedback that these types of units were used successfully in the past to provide the type of interest and conflict we all hope to see.

I understand where people who want to do things like play an Outrider are coming from and as a player, one of my earliest tiffs with my staff at the time was the fact that I couldn't play in a particular elite group!

Opportunities for PCs to reach for are good, and I think we acknowledge that, and the GMH staff team appears to be taking steps to provide more opportunities (see the new GMH change that provides a relatively clear-cut path to having your random commoner adopted into a Great Merchant Family, which comes with all sorts of perks and benefits).

However, I think if your PC is a badass and carries themselves as a badass, they're going to be perceived as a badass regardless of the sdesc of their cloak.

I have seen that there are many players in GMH, who are in a role that does not fit very well with the concept they would like to play. In the GMH I played in fairly recently, either you were a merchant, a maker or a hunter.

I had need of players that fit into other categories, such as spy, assassin, dirty tricks person.  And I hired them. Yet I had to stick them in the hunting division. It was not too much of a problem, except that in reality some guilds that I will not mention are very fragile and don't do well as hunters. So my special agent gets carrued of githed. Other players clearly did not like being hunters and really wanted to be guards.  Yet we only had a hunting division. Everyone hunts. I could have made an exception for the PCs, although it would have seemed out of place. Yet I -could- have done so.

Rather than opening up new -coded- subdivisions, ranks or jobs in a clan;

I think it should be left up to the clan leader to create the subgroups that she/he feels are needed, just through simple role play.  Then, if you really feel the need, go ahead and mastercraft a special cloak or some sort of insignia. When that leader PC dies, their sub group is disbanded. You get to keep the cool cloak kind of like your Masters hood from Uni. Unless the next leader wants to keep the group functioning.

This does not require any new code or changes to existing structure or docs.  It just requires a green light from clan staff, and the imagination of the PCs involved. I really do not think that the GMH staff would object to any of this, if you make a solid case. In my experience, Arm staff are pretty open minded and willing to give you opportunities.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Quote from: Riev on December 28, 2015, 05:18:53 PM
Nerdgal, does this mean that/can there start being more of a focus on "recommendations" from groups in game? Back in .... MY... day. Where I still couldn't RP for shit, having Byn Training meant that your Sergeant would basically vouch that, indeed, you did "follow rules for a year and weren't a headache". I VAGUELY remember contract lengths being like "If you spend three years in Salarr... woohoo. If you spend seven though, we'll give you a recommendation if you leave" and I remember thinking it was one of the best parts of clan life.

Sure, back then you would basically have been a Cadet for seven years, but if you were a headache and your boss said "Actually they're kind of a dingus, regardless of how much time they've had with us" I thought that'd carry weight.

With Life Oaths more rare, and terms of service being more the norm, maybe this can be a little more structured again?

There certainly won't be anything stopping people from using their past experience in a GMH to gain future employment. If anything, past employment in any clan should mean something significant. However I think it will still be up to PCs to acknowledge that experience.

Quote from: Delirium on December 28, 2015, 05:16:44 PM
Example time: If Shatuka hadn't been striving toward Outrider (her potential partners kept dying!) I can guarantee you I would have gotten bored and stagnated, no matter how many interesting plots I whipped up. Why?  Because at Sergeant, I'd topped out the glass ceiling and the only other movement was toward a more specialized, lateral unit - but one that happened to fit her and her abilities and her goals extremely well.

But, if all the unit is, in staff's eyes, "a special patch and a nicer footlocker", then yeah, the purpose and options open for those units needs to be revised. But that's not the fault of the players.

To use the example of Outriders: unfortunately, they have been closed for a long time, for reasons I'm not terribly familiar with, because I was a relatively new player at the time. I can tell you that if I was going to re-open the Outriders, I would:
- define a clear purpose for them, ICly
- make them fit into the game in a way that fits into everyday, typical RP
- give them a reason to RP with the rest of their clan
- create special gear for them, and possibly mounts/NPCs
- open/create other parts of Kurac, so that the Outriders aren't the only thing to aspire to

It's the last one that ends up being the trickiest part, and it can be the death knell for a clan if it is ignored. Put simply, if there is only one special group in a clan, with severely limited numbers, it becomes something that will largely be out of reach for people in a clan anyway. There needs to be other options so that the clan can attract different types of characters. These principles apply to Kadians/Falcons and Salarr/Expansion Division to some extent as well.

Oops!  I forgot, for a scarce moment, that I'm not allowed to kid around - or people will take offense.

Pretty much everything Norcal says I tend to agree with, including this.  Anecdote: one of my first PCs was a pickpocket in Salarr, and, although a hunter by name, she was put to various non-hunter tasks by the leadership.  As far as I could tell, there were no red lights to any of it, but it could have been staff being nice to me as a newb.  This was within the last two years.

I also see where Mordiggian is coming from: viewed form one perspective (even a players perspective), such elite units are flavor, so just add the flavor to your RP.  That said, I can see where the advocates are coming from too: some people like the tangible rewards -- reaching a rank that isn't just internally generated (i.e., generated owing to how you and the leadership RP it) but comes from the outside (i.e. from the docs/structure/staff of the clan).

(I also think seidhr's post was inappropriate for the reasons Delirium stated.)

Quote from: seidhr on December 28, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
Oops!  I forgot, for a scarce moment, that I'm not allowed to kid around - or people will take offense.

(https://memecrunch.com/meme/4I3CA/dont-take-a-fence/image.png?w=400&c=1)


It's Ok Seidhr.  :-*

Ahem, in a more straightforward and hopefully easier to follow manner - another thing to bear in mind, players, is that there is a finite number of you.

If we had 100 people on every night, it would make a lot more sense to open up additional clans.  It would kind of suck if we opened up 8 new clans and we had to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to populate them with players, and suddenly other clans dried up and became inactive, as a result.  I don't think any of us want to be the only person playing in a clan - from experience it's not a lot of fun.

As Nergal is already mentioning, there's also the matter of whether the clan is sufficiently documented, has a clear-cut IC purpose, has enough coded support, and so on.  My own dream is to play a Blackwing elf again!  But I'm telling you right now that would require a mountain of work to get them up to par for modern standards.

Steering back towards the purpose of this thread, Nergal has some awesome ideas for the GMHs so I do think you guys will be happy with the direction things are going!

Quote from: seidhr on December 28, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
Oops!  I forgot, for a scarce moment, that I'm not allowed to kid around - or people will take offense.

You have to post on your player alt if you want to kid around.  :P

The reason I brought up special groups is that it seems to breed GMH conflict just by existing. And aspirations, as well. I really disliked it when I was told I'd never be promoted past [rank], even when I'd been under [rank] all my clan career working towards it. Having a rank can change a character, and facilitate a character's arc or evolution. It breathes new life into a character that has probably stalled out on his or her ascent to First Hunter.

I think that special forces will be an augmentation, or an old guard's club -- and I was never disappointed I wasn't the man in charge, when the man in charge was doing great. Even if there was just 1 special guy as the adjutant Lord Competent Superior, it should be good for the clan.

Really, injecting that enthusiasm into the old formula of GMH again (especially with everyone remembering what was lost with it) would relate to GMH conflict positively.

Quote from: seidhr on December 28, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
Oops!  I forgot, for a scarce moment, that I'm not allowed to kid around - or people will take offense.

I feel your pain.

I took a fence. What are you gonna do about it?

Anyways, most of my questions/concerns about the GMH change were cleared by Nergal in the TS, and I feel better.

Clarification wise, a SENIOR level PC (Read: SENIOR Agent) could also life-swear a PC, but this is a SENIOR level player, not some fucking scrub agent or merchant. This is a player that has earned the right to basically kick a blue robe in the shin and get away with it.


Not really. But he probably could.

Lifesworn Regular = the new Outrider

Okay, not really, but sorta.  Lifesworn really is an insane level of prestige given their rarity in a House now, sort of like those special groups used to be, but while still doing your normal job.

But taking Outriders as an example, they'd need to be run through the Nergal Process (tm) as they shouldn't be just a new cloak.  Part of the problem is that what Outriders is meant to be is very hard for players to do (in addition to what they were meant to do changing depending on what decade you are talking about).  Not necessarily because of the players, but because of how the role was envisioned coupled with the reality of how things work.

Quote from: Asanadas on December 28, 2015, 05:42:05 PM

Quote from: seidhr on December 28, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
Oops!  I forgot, for a scarce moment, that I'm not allowed to kid around - or people will take offense.

You have to post on your player alt if you want to kid around.  :P

Tone's hard to convey, and I've been wrist-slapped before for being too snarky. And you know? They were right.

The GDB should be a welcoming place, no matter how silly people get.

If you find yourself wanting to post something that could be construed poorly, maybe you should rethink if it needs posting.

I'd much rather see special divisions be something that PCs/staff collaborate on to match a certain set of circumstances (Tired of Kryl?  Join Winrothol's Kryltastic division!), rather than re-work old divisions top-down with the intent that players fill them up.  Kind of in the way my nonprofit board creates committees when certain things need done.  "You, you, and you, I've been talking with Senior Twaffle about the Kryl problem, you're now the Kryl divsion, do it up, by the way, my crafter mastercrafted you a cloak.  CLOAKTASTIC. ... do a good job or else."

But I didn't start playing until 2009 and I've never played when there have been special divisions.  They were all before my time.  In fact, one of my first experiences with other player butthurt was when someone in the Legion wanted to get into a special division, but couldn't.  So I really don't know what I'm missing if anything.

I think I asked once about the Falcons and was told it wasn't feasible to join them because their purpose in the game was -very- niche. It's like joinng a noble house strictly to bodyguard. I mean, you "can" do that, if you'd like, but it would probably get boring. Fast.

Quote from: valeria on December 28, 2015, 07:07:01 PM
I'd much rather see special divisions be something that PCs/staff collaborate on to match a certain set of circumstances (Tired of Kryl?  Join Winrothol's Kryltastic division!), rather than re-work old divisions top-down with the intent that players fill them up.

Agreed. I think if we re-introduced special divisions, this would be a great way to go. Collaborate instead of mandate.

Quote from: Delirium on December 28, 2015, 07:30:37 PM

Quote from: valeria on December 28, 2015, 07:07:01 PM
I'd much rather see special divisions be something that PCs/staff collaborate on to match a certain set of circumstances (Tired of Kryl?  Join Winrothol's Kryltastic division!), rather than re-work old divisions top-down with the intent that players fill them up.

Agreed. I think if we re-introduced special divisions, this would be a great way to go. Collaborate instead of mandate.

+1

Or why wait to 're-introduce' special divisions? Let PC clan leaders delegate.

PC clan leaders are already allowed to delegate people into positions.

I'm going to go and call seidhr a jerk on jcarter.org if he doesn't tone it down.

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED SIR

I especially like the part where you can (with a lot of effort and time I'm guessing) be adopted in the family and have your own wife NPC that you can store in your closet when you're not using her. I hope it's actually -achievable- and doesn't demand 20 years of your RL like some goals seemed to be in the past.

I WANT AN NPC WIFE

etwo wife

First of all this is an awesome change. The idea that people can be adopted into family members, is awesome and makes playing in these clans much more fun.

I was thinking about it this for a few days after reading some posts... and I haven't change my mind, I really still think that conflict in GMH is for the most part is internal and petty. However, its occurred to me that unless the staff is actively churning out plots for any particular clan, all conflict is very petty and internal in any clan. The reason for this is basically every clan has won the game. This is a problem with many things in Arm right now including overall Allanak but that has already been mentioned elsewhere and would need its own thread.

However, with GMH's it goes farther than that, besides having won ICly within the game, they've won oocly too. If a player wants the best gear, they need to go to salarr, kadius and kurac. There are no other options. I think this is something that needs to change. I think PC master merchants should have equivalents to salarr, kadius and kurac's best gear/products. Perhaps not as great looking as what is offered from salarr but from a functional(code) point of view there should be no difference. With custom gear PC can make being slightly better too than the regular stuff the clans make. You can still go get custom stuff from clans ( as you can currently) but of course the cost is insane.

I don't think any PC merchant will ever be able to compete within a city with the merchant houses, but the game begins giving more attention to places outside the city like the tablelands, redstorm, luirs, morins, etc etc. I think an alternative to dealing with merchant houses will benefit the game alot. Because not every house has (to have) a firm grip on these more remote places and there is room for other smaller groups to compete. In luirs, kurac might get pissed if you are selling spice or desert gear but if you are selling weapons to the table lands, pushing out salarr's influence there, well  (hopefully) they will not give a shit. I'm sure salarr will care and will probably do something about it, but perhaps even something like that might cost, for example maybe killing you would piss off the tribes you were supplying, setting them back for a while, leaving room for other small groups to fill the void.

I know there might be good reasoning why clans should be only ones that can make the very best gear in the game (and they should be still able to make excellent -looking- gear that is fully functional code-wise),  but again while PC merchants have no coded equivalents to offer players looking for gear, then there is no way the GMH can ever feel like they could ever lose, or even be set back even in the most remote of places.

The Merchant Houses have little to no influence economically or otherwise in the Tablelands ;)

Quote from: Desertman on December 28, 2015, 11:05:36 AM
I'm fairly sure that [what you think will happen won't happen] But [if it did] what's wrong with letting [it happen for awhile?]  

Now, [if it did happen], then I believe staff should step in and [fix it after awhile].

How often will that have to happen though?

I think it's a non-issue.

In my opinion, that's a much better system that puts more power into the hands of the players and makes things a lot less stagnant.

The situation I posit, wherein players engage in short, bloody conflict with one another till a clear victor emerges, and that clear victor then uses their coded superiority as long lived characters to suppress new competition is not hypothetical, it's precedent.  :-\

This has happened in the past. This has happened since I've been on staff. I'm comfortable positing that it happens every time players are given the opporunity. Players like to win, and win quickly. It is what it is.

The problem with it, is that in effect, it ignores the virtual world. And then we have to come in and correct for it, which can often result in hurt feelings and less fun.

So, I disagree. I think it is an issue.

The system we have now allows for high frequency minor conflict. It's too bad you apparently haven't experienced much of it, but other players have chimed in in this thread already to let you know that they have.

I think the system you suggest would allow for low frequency major conflict, but I think the clans would feel more stagnant than they currently do between those major conflicts. Hence, I prefer to have a higher frequency of smaller conflicts like we presently do.

But major conflicts are fun, so I'd like to have those as well in the form of staff supported plots so that we get the best of both worlds.

Quote from: Desertman on December 28, 2015, 11:34:26 AM
How often do the guys on the ground floor [engage in supply side competition]?

You are just pointing out exactly what I'm saying. [Only high up management engages in this aspect of a business].

Again, I'm sorry to say that your assertion here is incorrect.

My sales team does not engage in supply side competition because it's not their job. They engage in front end competition.
GMH Merchants generally don't engage in supply side competition because it's not their job either.

My logistics team however, are guys on the ground floor who engage in supply side competition as their main responsibility.
GMH Hunters have the main responsibility of supply side competition as well.

Just a closing note:

In case I'm coming off as too negative I want to let you know that's not my intent. I understand you're offering suggestions that you think would improve the GMH experience, and that sort of feedback is always welcome even if I happen to disagree with parts of it.

But Nergal has been hard at work doing a bang up job of tinkering with Armageddon's economy both in the realm of driving larger scale plots for the GMH's, and digging into the code to expand on how base resources are acquired ala the mining updates.

I'm going to be diving into a project myself that Nergal started this week to help add more value to the GMH's as well. We're working to make things better.

Quote from: Jave on December 29, 2015, 08:07:06 AM

Quote from: Desertman on December 28, 2015, 11:05:36 AM
I'm fairly sure that [what you think will happen won't happen] But [if it did] what's wrong with letting [it happen for awhile?]  

Now, [if it did happen], then I believe staff should step in and [fix it after awhile].

How often will that have to happen though?

I think it's a non-issue.

In my opinion, that's a much better system that puts more power into the hands of the players and makes things a lot less stagnant.

The situation I posit, wherein players engage in short, bloody conflict with one another till a clear victor emerges, and that clear victor then uses their coded superiority as long lived characters to suppress new competition is not hypothetical, it's precedent.  :-\

This has happened in the past. This has happened since I've been on staff. I'm comfortable positing that it happens every time players are given the opporunity. Players like to win, and win quickly. It is what it is.

The problem with it, is that in effect, it ignores the virtual world. And then we have to come in and correct for it, which can often result in hurt feelings and less fun.

So, I disagree. I think it is an issue.

The system we have now allows for high frequency minor conflict. It's too bad you apparently haven't experienced much of it, but other players have chimed in in this thread already to let you know that they have.

I think the system you suggest would allow for low frequency major conflict, but I think the clans would feel more stagnant than they currently do between those major conflicts. Hence, I prefer to have a higher frequency of smaller conflicts like we presently do.

But major conflicts are fun, so I'd like to have those as well in the form of staff supported plots so that we get the best of both worlds.

Jave, this is a great post; I'm very glad to see you guys looking at things from the high frequency/lower stakes vs all-conflicts-equal-death angle. I agree that the game tends toward the latter, and also that it would benefit from tending toward the former. Kudos, it's great to see sophisticated schema like this

Quote from: Jave on December 29, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
Just a closing note:

In case I'm coming off as too negative I want to let you know that's not my intent. I understand you're offering suggestions that you think would improve the GMH experience, and that sort of feedback is always welcome even if I happen to disagree with parts of it.

But Nergal has been hard at work doing a bang up job of tinkering with Armageddon's economy both in the realm of driving larger scale plots for the GMH's, and digging into the code to expand on how base resources are acquired ala the mining updates.

I'm going to be diving into a project myself that Nergal started this week to help add more value to the GMH's as well. We're working to make things better.

You aren't coming off too negative. You believe you are right and maybe you will be.

Maybe when you are done with your tinkering you will have fixed the issues that make Houses like Salarr and Kadius have trouble fielding a single dependable merchant or more than two hunters at any time on a regular basis. (I'm actually sure in the short-term you will. For as long as staff is directly running plots and sending out regular role calls for sponsored roles related to those plots I fully expect the issue to be corrected. I'm worried about a year after that plot is over though.)

I really hope you do. It's a sad state of affairs and I've had it hurt me personally and my character's goals in the past....and I wasn't even part of those Houses so the issues affecting them aren't just a "Houses Issue". They are a playerbase-wide issue, which I know you are aware of.

I can tell you this though, just from my own point of view. (And I'm absolutely willing to admit I may be in the minority.)

When I think of playing in a Merchant House in their current status, at best I consider it a practice in boredom. At worst I consider it a great effort on the front of not only suspending the reality of the game world to motivate my PC to actually take the job, but also a great effort as a player to try and force myself into that awkward mold.

Staff ran plots designed to try and force conflict between the Houses over resources that in reality they don't care about day-to-day feels forced and doesn't interest me. It doesn't interest me because I don't feel like what I'm doing really matters, and I also don't feel like what I'm doing is really relevant to the House. It's not that I don't appreciate the effort, it's that I am the type of player who prefers to be given sand and told, "Build a castle.", instead of the type of player who is told, "Here is a castle, enjoy the guided tour.".

The system I'm pushing for is a little less, "Here is the castle we built. We hope you enjoy the castle.", and a little more, "Here is a big box of sand, make some shit and we will keep our hands out of what you are doing unless what you are doing starts destroying the playground.".

My ideas aren't perfect, but they are ideas designed around the concept of giving players what I have personally seen players tend to enjoy. This may be because the only people who play with me are people who also like what I like and in fact we are an extreme minority.

What I can tell you is staff ran plots as a leading device for creating a more enjoyable experience really won't in the long run in my opinion and it will be a lot of effort for minimal payoff.

I hope it works and I hope everything that is being done really fixes these longstanding issues, I'm just not horribly optimistic based on my own preferences. Hopefully, I'm just that asshole who doesn't understand what people actually enjoy.

Edited to Add: After reading this again, I think it is coming off as, "I hate your staff plots.". I don't hate your staff plots. I usually enjoy staff plots, even if they are staff plots that I'm really just "watching" and not "doing" in. They can be a lot of fun. It's just in this scenario, I do not feel staff ran plots are going to fix this issue by themselves. They are, in my opinion, like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. I hope that makes sense. I'm also sure you are doing other things behind the scenes as well. I just want to throw my input into what's going on there and hopefully you guys find it useful.

Quote from: Jave on December 29, 2015, 08:07:06 AM

The situation I posit, wherein players engage in short, bloody conflict with one another till a clear victor emerges, and that clear victor then uses their coded superiority as long lived characters to suppress new competition is not hypothetical, it's precedent.  :-\

This has happened in the past. This has happened since I've been on staff. I'm comfortable positing that it happens every time players are given the opporunity. Players like to win, and win quickly. It is what it is.

The problem with it, is that in effect, it ignores the virtual world. And then we have to come in and correct for it, which can often result in hurt feelings and less fun.

So, I disagree. I think it is an issue.

The system we have now allows for high frequency minor conflict. It's too bad you apparently haven't experienced much of it, but other players have chimed in in this thread already to let you know that they have.

I think the system you suggest would allow for low frequency major conflict, but I think the clans would feel more stagnant than they currently do between those major conflicts. Hence, I prefer to have a higher frequency of smaller conflicts like we presently do.

But major conflicts are fun, so I'd like to have those as well in the form of staff supported plots so that we get the best of both worlds.

I wanted to touch on this as a side-note, of sorts.

This reads to me as, "We don't want you guys doing anything that matters where we don't have a hand in determining the outcome. You are only allowed to do things that don't really matter, and the second you try and do things that do, we are going to be right there to make sure the outcome goes our way.".

I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but it is reading that way.

I've also often felt this way in game, which may have more to do with me and less to do with staff. I'm the sort of player who wants all of the control and very little meddling.

I do believe that it is better to stand back and say, "Let's see how this works out.", sometimes. Often times I feel like staff see something that is going on that is interesting, and they feel a responsibility/desire to jump in and say, "Alright, this is kind of cool, now, I get to put my own flavor on it and I think it would be cool if it turned out this way....so it's going to, because I have decided it is.".

That's what I get from this post.

"You guys can do little stuff that doesn't really matter, and if you try to do big things that do on any level, we are going to dictate how it goes.".

It is exactly that sort of mindset/policy that makes me more often than not roll up indy rangers and mind my own business with an extreme hope I just get overlooked.

I think the push should be towards, "How do we let players do more big things with less help from staff.", and not, "How do we ensure they only do small things unless we have our hands in it.".

I think your perspective of minor and major may differ from some others. My personal perception of minor vs. major conflicts is that major conflicts can lead to loss of minions, which leads plots to stagnate and contacts to go missing, etc. minor conflicts can feel like a bit of an achievement to overcome as well. On the one hand, you say you don't want someone to give you some sand and say, here you go, build a castle, you say you'd like the castle with a guided tour, on the other you'd like staff to interact as little as possible, if I'm not misinterpreting, but isn't building the castle for you interacting in your plots a bit much? Losing key characters results in the search for a replacement, you have no way of knowing if this replacement is going to be anywhere near as trustworthy or reliable, and they damn sure won't be as codedly strong or capable of doing their job, this results in a huge investment of time and resources before it begins to pay off, and in the meantime, that major conflict is still going on, costing you people.

Minor conflicts, however, do not cost resources which are all that difficult to replace. Sure, it may be over something that doesn't, in the end, convey all that much in a coded manner, but in a virtual manner it has given you a bit of a leg up on your competition and an achievement you can look back on and debate whether you could have done better, or study where things could have turned for the worst and resolve not to let things get cut that close again. I like minor conflicts because the leader PCs, assuming they survive (which, touches on the point of there not being enough PCs in a merchant house clan to facilitate plots outside of the merchant house), don't have to set all ongoing plots aside and work at carefully replacing their help. By all means, draw your minions into your plots, where reasonable, and get them to feel involved, drum up excitement over the small victories and the perks that will surely trickle down from it, make your underlings feel important in the achievement of a goal, this will keep them active and playing.

Quote from: 555 on December 29, 2015, 02:28:04 PM
On the one hand, you say you don't want someone to give you some sand and say, here you go, build a castle, you say you'd like the castle with a guided tour, on the other you'd like staff to interact as little as possible, if I'm not misinterpreting, but isn't building the castle for you interacting in your plots a bit much?

This is the exact opposite of what I posted.

Quote from: Desertman on December 29, 2015, 10:40:32 AM

I am the type of player who prefers to be given sand and told, "Build a castle.", instead of the type of player who is told, "Here is a castle, enjoy the guided tour.".

The system I'm pushing for is a little less, "Here is the castle we built. We hope you enjoy the castle.", and a little more, "Here is a big box of sand, make some shit and we will keep our hands out of what you are doing unless what you are doing starts destroying the playground.".

Desertman is saying he wants to build the castle. What he's touching on is that staff members can decide if you build that castle, and, indeed, can decide who you build that castle with. It's been said here on the GDB that staff members have the privilege of removing players from their clan for "reasons" -- something I've experienced, heh.

I'm with D-man in that I'm concerned there is the potential a staff member would use this to say "no" to a character life-swearing to their clan, just based on issues they have with the player. That would be something that makes players uneasy. I feel like OOC issues are OOC issues and should not influence IC actions. However, that potential has been there ever since I can remember in other ways, anyhow. But I've got faith in the current staff team, as it stands. This change comes from a good position, and isn't with "bad" intentions.

Where before it was the player leader's choice in who to "lock-in", now there's staff involvement. I think lots more communication from both sides in requests nd etc. will help ease this, and not make it seem like a rescinding of valued player-PC rights.  ;)

Quote from: Asanadas on December 29, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
Desertman is saying he wants to build the castle.

This is what I'm saying. (I'm not sure about the rest of that stuff and life-swearing and all of that. I'm not talking about that.)

But to that point, I will say that I'm 99% sure staff will absolutely look at recommendations from your current PC leaders when it comes to deciding if you get asked to life-swear into the House.

If your PC leaders who are already lifesworn recommend you to also be lifesworn, I would bet you have a damn good chance.

Also, I've given all of my best advice so I really don't have anything more to add.

I'll bow out now. Thanks for taking the time to read what I posted and for giving thoughtful replies. I do appreciate it as I really do care about this topic.

Quote from: Desertman on December 29, 2015, 02:45:09 PM

Quote from: Asanadas on December 29, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
Desertman is saying he wants to build the castle.

This is what I'm saying. (I'm not sure about the rest of that stuff and life-swearing and all of that. I'm not talking about that.)

But to that point, I will say that I'm 99% sure staff will absolutely look at recommendations from your current PC leaders when it comes to deciding if you get asked to life-swear into the House.

If your PC leaders who are already lifesworn recommend you to also be lifesworn, I would bet you have a damn good chance.

I see, apologies for misreading your post, Desertman. I suppose it does make more sense to me now, and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt when reading your post and reread it another time.

EDIT: There are things the player can do in game to start conflict, which needn't end in stabbing. Keep in mind you're the best house in the known, doesn't matter what anyone else says, and you aim to prove it whenever the opportunity presents itself... witty, cutting verbal ripostes, cracking jokes about a well-known quirk or trait of a member of a house, belittling, hand-waving their achievements, calling their low-level employees idiots, inviting them over for sparring to lay the smack down, when you find yourself in a position to prove some form of dominance and/or superiority, just do it, and surely your enemy will reciprocate in kind. If they choose to escalate beyond a certain point, then stabbing  may be resorted to. It may sound petty and without heavy enough consequences, but going too heavy-handed is detrimental to the game as a whole, and the plots of people even outside the houses. There's nothing that says you can't respect the strong points your enemy possesses and know that mutually assured destruction is inevitable should things go too far, so you'd tiptoe around that.

Give PC merchants the ability to make basic looking but codedly equal alternatives to the gear/equipment salarr/kadius/kurac make and I think GMHs will have more conflict, competition and antagonist in the future in just about any area that isn't allanak (or tuluk).  

Quote from: Desertman on December 29, 2015, 10:40:32 AM
When I think of playing in a Merchant House in their current status, [I don't care for it].

Staff ran plots [also don't interest me because I enjoy a more player driven, play dependent outcome style of gaming].

That's fine. We all have preferences. I haven't noticed a problem with activity inside the GMH's. I'm not supervising those clans at the moment but I can think of reliable movers and shakers in each House off the top of my head because I always see them online and notice the character reports they're sending in.

But if you don't care for that kind of role, then we have a lot of other roles available. I personally never cared for playing in Allanak.

Quote from: Desertman on December 29, 2015, 11:11:03 AM
This reads to me as, "We don't want you guys doing anything that matters where we don't have a hand in determining the outcome. You are only allowed to do things that don't really matter, and the second you try and do things that do, we are going to be right there to make sure the outcome goes our way.".

We don't think that. Our perspective is "Please don't ignore the game world."

We aren't playing Counter Strike or Call of Duty here. Characters are not dropped into a small, static sandbox with weapon catches hidden around to engage in a free for all until the most skilled gamer comes out on top.

Mostly I think we end up ignoring something through unintentional ignorance, or because we get caught up in the conflict of the moment and get too excited.

It takes many forms which can include but is not limited to:

• Thinking an area in the wilderness is safe because you only saw 1 NPC there.
• Thinking that a group you are creating trouble for is only as strong as the coded power the PC's of that group are able to personally project.
• Thinking that rooms with no NPCs in them are abandoned.

Basically, player characters represent the tip of the iceberg that is the organization they are affiliated with, and your titanic ignores that at your peril.

You said you want to do something that "matters" and by "matters" I can only assume you mean "has a strong impact on the setting of the gameworld". -- Great, but please realize that you're going up against forces far stronger than the handful of PC's at the tip of that iceberg -- and plan accordingly. The more you talk with us (the staff) about what you're trying to do the more we can help the story get told.

Also i'm counting 15 PCs in one GMH, 11 PC's in another GMH, and 10 PC's in another. So i'm not sure where the idea of 'hard to find 1 or 2 merchants' or 'hire a guard or two' comes from beyond player misconception.

I will say that this is a higher GMH population than you are perhaps used to Desertman. But data is data.

Probably people have that misconception becuase those poor GMHers are so sick off all the nagging about orders that they constantly have a barrier up, and only let those in with the power to crush it. :D

Quote from: Eurynomos on December 30, 2015, 01:46:10 AM
Also i'm counting 15 PCs in one GMH, 11 PC's in another GMH, and 10 PC's in another. So i'm not sure where the idea of 'hard to find 1 or 2 merchants' or 'hire a guard or two' comes from beyond player misconception.

I will say that this is a higher GMH population than you are perhaps used to Desertman. But data is data.

I've had this report tell me I had 25+ people in my crew alone. I may have considered 4 - 6 of them even alive on an IC level.

(I'm not saying this is the case here, I'm just saying this data is not always reflective of what's actually happening in game, and in my own experience, it has always been extremely wrong every single time. I am willing to concede it may be a perfect reflection of IC performances in these cases.)

Quote from: Desertman on December 30, 2015, 10:47:12 AM

Quote from: Eurynomos on December 30, 2015, 01:46:10 AM
Also i'm counting 15 PCs in one GMH, 11 PC's in another GMH, and 10 PC's in another. So i'm not sure where the idea of 'hard to find 1 or 2 merchants' or 'hire a guard or two' comes from beyond player misconception.

I will say that this is a higher GMH population than you are perhaps used to Desertman. But data is data.

I've had this report tell me I had 25+ people in my crew alone. I may have considered 4 - 6 of them even alive on an IC level.

(I'm not saying this is the case here, I'm just saying this data is not always reflective of what's actually happening in game, and in my own experience, it has always been extremely wrong every single time. I am willing to concede it may be a perfect reflection of IC performances in these cases.)

There is a difference between 'People not playing when I play, therefore they are inactive' and 'People are playing when I don't play, who are active, just not when I am'. It's a matter of perception, and yes, as Staff we are able to see when people log in, are active, and are inactive. As a player, you only have the data in front of you, which is basically playing the game and seeing who's around when you play.

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

Quote from: Eurynomos on December 31, 2015, 01:43:13 AM

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

This is a good point I had not fully considered.

My only other point would be that we might consider this as a time to implement a system where closing down half of the world isn't a key factor in making this no longer an issue.

Quote from: Desertman on December 31, 2015, 10:13:41 AM

Quote from: Eurynomos on December 31, 2015, 01:43:13 AM

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

This is a good point I had not fully considered.

My only other point would be that we might consider this as a time to implement a system where closing down half of the world isn't a key factor in making this no longer an issue.

One might argue that closing Tuluk was, in part, an effort to help solve problems like you mentioned -- Having Northern and Southern Branches, active, in every GMH, was part of the untenable stretched-too-thin problem that we had with the GMH. Having only an active Southern Branch in the GMH has effectively doubled the active population in each, with the exception of Kurac who never really had an active 'Northern Branch' or 'Southern Branch', more like the 'Midwest Branch'.

Quote from: Eurynomos on December 31, 2015, 03:41:02 PM

Quote from: Desertman on December 31, 2015, 10:13:41 AM

Quote from: Eurynomos on December 31, 2015, 01:43:13 AM

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

This is a good point I had not fully considered.

My only other point would be that we might consider this as a time to implement a system where closing down half of the world isn't a key factor in making this no longer an issue.

One might argue that closing Tuluk was, in part, an effort to help solve problems like you mentioned -- Having Northern and Southern Branches, active, in every GMH, was part of the untenable stretched-too-thin problem that we had with the GMH. Having only an active Southern Branch in the GMH has effectively doubled the active population in each, with the exception of Kurac who never really had an active 'Northern Branch' or 'Southern Branch', more like the 'Midwest Branch'.

Agreed.

I want to weigh in on the discussion that was being had circa page 4 about special roles and rewards, ala outriders. I've been in a lot of clans over the years and, with the exception of the Tzai Byn, I can't remember one that didn't have some kind of elite military unit and some kind of "this is for assassins" unit outlined in the clan documentation. I can see how these units fit into the game world thematically, and how they may have once had a spot for players during the "good 'ol bad days" of arm when GMH employees were openly backstabbing blue robes in the streets of Allanak... And I can also see how that sort of thing doesn't generally fly in the acceptable mode of gameplay anymore.

But I don't think that means clans should be one size fits all. And I'm not saying that "everyone should get their own personalized cloak and badges" as seidhr put it (jokingly). But I think there should be some role variance, even if it's not glorified with a bad-ass title and bone spurs.

Quote from: Norcal on December 28, 2015, 05:24:28 PM
I think it should be left up to the clan leader to create the subgroups that she/he feels are needed, just through simple role play.

This is definitely one of the hallmarks of a good leader. You clan has a lot of different characters with a lot of different competencies (coded or otherwise), and I think the best leaders recognize and utilize that.

Story time. Last time I played in the Tzai Byn (a year or two ago) our Sarge did a pretty good job of this. He divided Byners into two groups "heavies" and "scouts" where the scouts were ~4 hand picked rangers, and the heavies were everybody else. On a mission the scouts were trained to scan, watch a specific directions, scout, or whatever else rangery needed done. When it came time to fight, if we had to kill a pack of gith say, the scouts would fire a few volleys of arrows first, then the heavies would charge and engage, then the scouts would come in in a second wave. We certainly could've just engaged them straight up and won just as easily, but this strategy was codedly effective, tactically realistic, and thematically more fun. (A common gith-stomp turned into a scene from Braveheart.) Apart from that, we had another guy (Merchant/Aggressor I believe) who became an unofficial quarter master of sorts, who would take you to the market and haggle down the vendors for you. Or craft you gear, so that runners could get decent gear for what little coin they brought.

These were miner tweaks that allowed non-warriors playing in the premier kick-bash-disarm clan of Armageddon to play their skillsets, and feel like they were really contributing to the team, rather than just being the least effective characters in the "kill" spam.

Another thing I saw that I liked, was when I was last in the AOD we created this "pin" system where you would get a sash or something, and then you could earn pins of special significance that you could add onto them. There were things like "fighting in a battle", and I think one of the highest ones was for "saving a Templars life". And I think there were event-specific ones for like veterans of the Copper Wars. It's kind of fuzzy - it's been a while. But this was also a really cool little perk that can give players things to aspire for / achieve. Albeit it's a little gimmicky, and maybe Zalanthas doesn't strike you as a "participation ribbon" society, but when you think about it these are accolades that can drive your troops to work harder and aspire to them, for the cost of maybe 50 sid a pin, if they're really fancy.

So there is a lot leaders can do on their own to enact these kinds of things. Personally if one of your trusted employees is going to assassinate someone for you, I don't see the harm in getting Imm-proval to say "Congrats, now you're in the 'Black Daggers' division. You get nothing for it. Because it's secret. Just tell everyone you're in the guard division. Shhh!" I mean, who the fuck would actually wear a special cloak saying "I'm an assassin" ?? We're not filithy Tuluki's. (At least not anymore!)