I am kind of late to the party.

To me a large part of these changes are about Staffing.  Compared to when I came on board Staff in 2015, there are differences in both the availability of players to Staff that we feel comfortable with and the challenges that Staffing comes with.  This second part has been slowly changing for a few years, but sped up dramatically after the events of last winter.  There has been a dramatic increase in work not really related to the core Storytelling.  Looking forward, Staff will not be able to support the game as it currently exists with these trends in play.  This also plays into why this was a leadership decision.  Like many staffing decisions in many organizations it is up to the leadership to make the tough decisions around staffing.

Going to a Seasons model lets Staff not have to do everything at once.  When a Season is active, I expect we will devote our time to supporting players, plots, and very limited building.  When it is not active, we will shift to building, ideating about plots and will get a mental break from supporting players (and, frankly, any drama associated with them).  Seasons also enables some natural breaks that better supports a variable Staffing model. I personally feel this model will likely be better for Staff mental health, attitudes toward players and ultimately the Staff-Player relationship.

It is not the only option that was considered.  We considered an invite-only model, but ultimately felt while there might be a golden period of consistently good RP, eventually it would kill the game due to player replenishment problems.

What player-staff relationship? I just did a 5 day calculation using mssp data for before and after the announcement, and on avg:
Preceding the change, an avg of 79 people were actively logged into the mud over five days.
After the change, 42.5 people were actively logged into the mud over a period of five days.

Considering that the game gets ~140 unique logins a week, and that on avg each player normally contributes to .56 players logged in throughout the day; you've lost about 64 players with this announcement alone.

I guess the game is easier to staff over when you lose 64 players? Less mental health issues when you lose 64 players? Less plots to support when you lose 64 players?

Edit: If you doubt the numbers, just calculate it yourself: https://imgur.com/a/0s5Lw65
Courtesy of MSSP data provided by: https://iberia.jdai.pt/mudstats/mud/armageddon_mud
You know, just a fun fact.

EDIT:EDIT: I had posts below this one responding to Brokkr's posts, but they were moderated.

Quote from: Brokkr on December 10, 2023, 06:00:21 PMIt is not the only option that was considered.  We considered an invite-only model, but ultimately felt while there might be a golden period of consistently good RP, eventually it would kill the game due to player replenishment problems.

Out of curiosity, what would this invite-only model have entailed?

Quote from: Usiku on December 10, 2023, 05:45:34 PMWe're working on putting together estimates for timelines at the moment. We're working through a lot of requests from folks about their current plots and plans and that will help us to inform how long we should stay open initially, which is a big part of the overall timeline.

Alrighty then. Appreciated.

I hope you can understand why the playerbase would react as we have, given the information we started with.

Quote from: Brokkr on December 10, 2023, 06:00:21 PMI am kind of late to the party.

To me a large part of these changes are about Staffing.  Compared to when I came on board Staff in 2015, there are differences in both the availability of players to Staff that we feel comfortable with and the challenges that Staffing comes with.  This second part has been slowly changing for a few years, but sped up dramatically after the events of last winter.  There has been a dramatic increase in work not really related to the core Storytelling.  Looking forward, Staff will not be able to support the game as it currently exists with these trends in play.  This also plays into why this was a leadership decision.  Like many staffing decisions in many organizations it is up to the leadership to make the tough decisions around staffing.

Going to a Seasons model lets Staff not have to do everything at once.  When a Season is active, I expect we will devote our time to supporting players, plots, and very limited building.  When it is not active, we will shift to building, ideating about plots and will get a mental break from supporting players (and, frankly, any drama associated with them).  Seasons also enables some natural breaks that better supports a variable Staffing model. I personally feel this model will likely be better for Staff mental health, attitudes toward players and ultimately the Staff-Player relationship.

It is not the only option that was considered.  We considered an invite-only model, but ultimately felt while there might be a golden period of consistently good RP, eventually it would kill the game due to player replenishment problems.

No offense, but wow. Woooow. Not a great read.

Actual question, as a former player thoroughly dissuaded of my brief interest in returning to the game: Is there a contingency plan?

If this fails to come together, either never opening or never moving out of its first season, will ArmageddonMUD simply cease to be? Will it be moved to an effective maintenance mode, kept up by whomever is willing to keep hosting? Something else?

Has there been consideration of releasing the code and lore for players to enjoy privately, or begin their own offshoots?

I was going to write my feelings but decided against it because mansa will just moderate it because it isn't pro his opinion.

Quote from: Krath on December 10, 2023, 09:46:33 PMI was going to write my feelings but decided against it because mansa will just moderate it because it isn't pro his opinion.

Calling staff members "disgusting" goes against the rules of the GDB.

That is not acceptable in this community.

Quote from: CirclelessBard on December 10, 2023, 06:35:48 PM

Quote from: Brokkr on December 10, 2023, 06:00:21 PMIt is not the only option that was considered.  We considered an invite-only model, but ultimately felt while there might be a golden period of consistently good RP, eventually it would kill the game due to player replenishment problems.

Out of curiosity, what would this invite-only model have entailed?

Don't know.  Obviously it wasn't a good idea. That is how decisions get made, you bandy around a few ideas (this is just one I remember, the ideate started while ago), discuss, reformulate, refine, discard, etc.  Every alternate idea I could recount from the process would be something we discarded.

As for Staffing, it is kind of important if you want to maintain a certain bar for RP and facilitating that. It may not be important if you just want an unmonitored sandbox MUD where folks can do whatever, but none of us at this point seem interested in that.

Quote from: mansa on December 10, 2023, 10:04:35 PM

Quote from: Krath on December 10, 2023, 09:46:33 PMI was going to write my feelings but decided against it because mansa will just moderate it because it isn't pro his opinion.

Calling staff members "disgusting" goes against the rules of the GDB.

That is not acceptable in this community.

This is where we will agree to disagree. There was nothing calling them out of name or anything derogatory.

That being said, I have no problem admitting when I may have mad a mistake, and if you, mandate, did not edit the post in question, I apologize.

I completely understand Staff's perspective in wanting to change something, and wanting to shut the game down for a while in hopes that things improve. I would be absolutely burned out volunteering for a game that requires this much investment and brings this much drama. For this reason, and others, Staff will always have my support and empathy.

However, I don't think the solution to Armageddon's problems is in changing the gameworld though. I think the one thing that the every single person agrees on is that the gameworld is fucking cool. It's everything else about the game that folks seem to fight over and complain about. Never once have I seen a nuclear GDB thread over the Zalanthas historical timeline, or Red Desert geography.

So, while I support Staff in whatever they want to do (becuase Staff does the hard work), I don't think this is how you fix player culture or address staff burnout. In the new gam, the playerbase will be mostly the same, the staffers will be mostly the same, and the relationships will likely remain mostly the same.

It feels like a decision driven by burnout and frustration, rather than a decision inspired by creativity and vision. I know Staff will use their tremendous amounts of creativity and vision to bring us a great new iteration of Zalanthan experience, but I'm not seeing how it gets to the root of the problem that brought us here.

I guess I don't have a better solution though. How do you get internet strangers with fantasy name computer aliases living out a text-based desert-world alternate reality to act like well adjusted human beings? Good luck and Godspeed. I will make a PC in this Brave New World of yours, once created.

A question about seasons.  Just, how spectacular of a failure would be necessary to force staff's hand into at least trying to work with the Community instead of micro-manage every little detail to fall in-line with exactly what the Big B wants?  How, significant of a flop would all of this need to be to really drive home that the problem isn't the players? 

I might not have admitted openly to saying there was even the DISCUSSION of moving to Invite-Only. To even start down that train of thought, even though it was dismissed, is to admit that you dislike the playerbase so vehemently that you were willing to only invite people you like and stopped because you knew you would eventually run out of people you like.

It feels very much "We were going to cheat on you with another person, but we decided against it. Give me points for NOT doing it!"

As to the question:
One big push from staff in recent years has been about needing other people/skillsets to accomplish your goals. There is always a crafter that needs a skinner, or a soldier who needs a target, etc.

If Armageddon: Seasons has more defined overarching goals to accomplish, are there plans in place for when certain skillsets aren't as available as needed?

I'm curious about the implications of having (hopefully) dozens of new characters starting in the same region on the same day.

For example, in the initial week you might have multiple characters going through the newbie shops at the same time, more characters than usual looking for a job, few characters with developed skills, etc.

Do you think changes to the process of entering the game might be necessary or desirable?

Quote from: flurry on December 11, 2023, 10:50:17 AMI'm curious about the implications of having (hopefully) dozens of new characters starting in the same region on the same day.

For example, in the initial week you might have multiple characters going through the newbie shops at the same time, more characters than usual looking for a job, few characters with developed skills, etc.

Do you think changes to the process of entering the game might be necessary or desirable?

Excellent callout and suggestion.  Over the years we've written various scripts to help with setup in clans, the most recent iteration of that is the Advanced Start for the Byn/AoD/Legions.  I could see us expanding more on that to make the custom setups go more smoothly.

I could also see us maybe getting some of the 'leaders' in the game a day or two early so they can get settled and ready for other folks.

We haven't gotten that far into the weeds of that kind of detail, but we're open to your ideas on the subject if you have any.

While it's generally the Arm community's way to latch onto things to fight, yell, and point fingers over, I think often what gets left at the wayside when changes are made in almost anything (not just Arm that is!) is the actual purpose behind these ideas, and new paths forward. Ask yourself really, what drove those changes?

In my mind, this change is not for players.  It's not a fingerpointing at players or intended as a punishment either. It's the staff saying, we can't maintain this how it is. Tons of staff even recently have been lost and a lot of it's into the ever-hungry maw of the constant in-Armageddon haterade being guzzled and flung over any little thing, all the time. They don't like having to deal with complaints. They don't like having to come on the forums and read through pages of their passion being torn apart because it doesn't fit everyone's individual vision of a perfect utopian Armageddon, which absolutely no one around here would agree with and everyone would (and does) fight over all the time.

A lot of that flinging and hate is at the staff, which they're expected to be perfect saints over and not respond to even when it's from the same people week after week, or even year after year, while those same haters enjoy the entertainment and hospitality of a game the administration's pouring themselves into and stressing over all the time hoping to get perfect while some of you, honestly, are pretty abusive towards them and rarely ever move the needle from "I HATE EVERYTHING AND YOU" to just a silence with an air of bitterness hanging over it.

I see the merits of an invite-only model. But what some of you should be looking at and asking yourselves - empathetically instead of trying to find a reason to fingerpoint and fight - is why I, or the staff, would.

To be clear, I don't think invite-only is the way. But I think some de-invitations in some cases, honestly, would not be a terrible thing.

Quote from: Riev on December 11, 2023, 09:54:22 AMI might not have admitted openly to saying there was even the DISCUSSION of moving to Invite-Only. To even start down that train of thought, even though it was dismissed, is to admit that you dislike the playerbase so vehemently that you were willing to only invite people you like and stopped because you knew you would eventually run out of people you like.

Not sure how you took that in the context of my post.  My recollection is the idea pre-dates the Seasons idea by enough I am not even sure it is was the same Producer team when it was come up with.  To me the interesting part of the idea is how it might impact Staffing (which was the context of my post) and being able to re-orient time and mindshare towards facilitating great roleplaying.  The downside and reason it was thought about for a New York minute and then dismissed was the impact to the playerbase. Crazy ideas are a part of brainstorming.

Quote from: Brokkr on December 11, 2023, 12:18:31 PMNot sure how you took that in the context of my post.  My recollection is the idea pre-dates the Seasons idea by enough I am not even sure it is was the same Producer team when it was come up with.  To me the interesting part of the idea is how it might impact Staffing (which was the context of my post) and being able to re-orient time and mindshare towards facilitating great roleplaying.  The downside and reason it was thought about for a New York minute and then dismissed was the impact to the playerbase. Crazy ideas are a part of brainstorming.

Because you offhandedly mentioned turning a 30 year old game, to which many of us have years if not decades of emotional investment, into a gated community. At the end of a post written with language that, IMHO, comes off as impersonal and corporate. This is the bit that got me:

Quote from: Brokkr on December 10, 2023, 06:00:21 PM... When it is not active, we will shift to building, ideating about plots and will get a mental break from supporting players (and, frankly, any drama associated with them). ...

Emphasis mine. I'm sure you thought you were offering some objective insight into the decision. Telling a body of people that they're dramatic and you need a break from them? When they're confused and unhappy over a very sudden and drastic change? I hope you understand why that's mostly going to piss people off without unpacking it piece-by-piece.

But even more than that, the sentiment is coming from a position of protected authority. You're punching down. It is abusive, and the vague broadness of it honestly makes it read victim-blamey, which is just extremely gross given what went down this year. I would like to think none of that was deliberate on your part. But if you can't see why people are reacting negatively to what you said...

Yeah. It was not great, man, and I'm not even unsympathetic to the some of the rational behind downsizing.

Quote from: Brokkr on December 11, 2023, 12:18:31 PM

Quote from: Riev on December 11, 2023, 09:54:22 AMI might not have admitted openly to saying there was even the DISCUSSION of moving to Invite-Only. To even start down that train of thought, even though it was dismissed, is to admit that you dislike the playerbase so vehemently that you were willing to only invite people you like and stopped because you knew you would eventually run out of people you like.

Not sure how you took that in the context of my post.  My recollection is the idea pre-dates the Seasons idea by enough I am not even sure it is was the same Producer team when it was come up with.  To me the interesting part of the idea is how it might impact Staffing (which was the context of my post) and being able to re-orient time and mindshare towards facilitating great roleplaying.  The downside and reason it was thought about for a New York minute and then dismissed was the impact to the playerbase. Crazy ideas are a part of brainstorming.

The context of your post was "we thought about moving to invite only but decided against it". I didn't take it out of context, it was your words. My concern is that I wouldn't have openly stated that there was even that discussion.

Honestly, why mention it at all? What purpose did it serve to say that, as one of two "Owners" of this game? To me, it screams "Be glad we DIDN'T do that. Give us points for not doing this thing we decided was bad".

Quote from: Riev on December 11, 2023, 02:53:18 PMHonestly, why mention it at all? What purpose did it serve to say that, as one of two "Owners" of this game? To me, it screams "Be glad we DIDN'T do that. Give us points for not doing this thing we decided was bad".

People have asked what other things were being considered, more than once, I believe.

I went back and read the announcement, and I still have questions:


When will the game be closed?    TBD, but beyond in January
What will happen to my character when the game is closed?   
Why should I continue playing my character now? 
-> Is there any incentive to keep playing?
-> Will there be any in-game events leading up to the closure of the game?
-> Is there anything I should do with my current character before the game is closed?
When is the new game available to play?    TBD, but at least a few months beyond the closing date.
What is the story of the new game?     "Allanak -> 50-100 years into the future. This future scenario promises a mix of continuity and change, where players might encounter new political dynamics, witness the emergence of new powers or observe the decline of existing ones."
What incentive is there for me to play in the new game?
-> What is the sales pitch for the new game, for the players?
What is different in the new game, compared to the old game?
-> What is possible for me to do in the new game?
-> What is not possible for me to do in the new game?
-> What restrictions are going to happen in the new game?

How can I help out the community and the MUD transition to the new game?
(aka I don't want to feel powerless and without agency in this addiction I enjoy.)

Would you guys consider moving up the wipe date considering how dead the world's been of late? If the ability for staffers to finish out their plots is impossible due to the low players.

Excited to move to the next step and see what's behind the curtain.

Quote from: Windstorm on December 11, 2023, 11:45:54 AMn my mind, this change is not for players.  It's not a fingerpointing at players or intended as a punishment either. It's the staff saying, we can't maintain this how it is. Tons of staff even recently have been lost and a lot of it's into the ever-hungry maw of the constant in-Armageddon haterade being guzzled and flung over any little thing, all the time. They don't like having to deal with complaints. They don't like having to come on the forums and read through pages of their passion being torn apart because it doesn't fit everyone's individual vision of a perfect utopian Armageddon, which absolutely no one around here would agree with and everyone would (and does) fight over all the time.

I'd agree with the above but I think the changes can also work for the players. Interaction is a lot less than it could be as we're split across a pretty big game world and Houses/Clans are under-populated for the most part which shallows out the RP. Consolidation would definitely help here - it's been necessary for quite a while really. Players have also long complained about lack of agency, game inertia, staff response times, etc., etc. Adopting a sized-down model where Staff focus purely on being Staff should be able to help with all these things. It's a pity that we have to come to this as I'm sure everyone would love to keep the big-world model but times have changed and it's time to adapt or die.

The biggest potential roadblock to it succeeding is going to be the players. The announcement and whole lead-in to the changes absolutely could have been handled better but the player reaction has been a bit over-dramatic in my opinion. Sure we all like our little characters and I know I'll be disappointed to lose mine after working for 5 months to get him into the position I wanted for him but it's just a game at the end of the day. I think people just need to step back and think about whether they like playing Arm or not. If not, as it seems to be with some people who get infuriated over everything, then just leave it all behind - everyone's life would be a little better off. If yes then suck it up as changes are needed, play out what we have left here to give it a decent send-off and give Seasons a shot with an open mind - it definitely can work.

Remember, debate the ideas not the person.  It's OK to hate what we're doing and voice that.  It's OK to like what we're doing and voice that.  It's not OK to insult each other, tell people their feelings are somehow not legitimate or inferior.

That said, this is technically a Q&A thread, so let's keep it to questions please.  There's other threads to voice your pleasure/displeasure.

In what meaningful way, is Armageddon Seasons believed to improve the staff/player relationship?  What information was used to come to this conclusion.  In what way, was the person making this decision, educated and qualified on making it? 


[Moderator Edit: This post was heavily edited but ultimately kept available with the question posed by poster.]

There's a lot of talk of mention of some players being unhappy in general with how the game was going.
Meanwhile the gameworld was pressing on with a rich plethora of plots, and an ever growing history built out of character actions.

What about the players who are happy?  What about the players like me who very rarely if ever visit the forums,  are not a part of discord, and only play the game for the RP and the IC?
Who are happy, but afraid to wade into the wasteland of conflict that exists OOCLY.

If it wasn't for the announcement posted ingame, I wouldn't even have known this was happening since I do not check the forum often enough to have been aware.

It feels like there's way, way too much ooc, and a very vocal minority is starting to determine and influence the course that admins take because they complain loudly, or aggressively enough.

What can be done to give all players a voice without them having to take part in the forum or on discord? Can there be a poll made on the log in screen with important question's or surveys once one is logged in to collect individual players opinions or thoughts on something the staff would like to know in the future?