First and foremost, I'm going to clearly state this is not framed as an attack, but is me expressing my opinion using what knowledge base and experience I have. If anyone else decides to post in this thread, I hope they keep that frame of mind intact, not just for me, but against any and all who participate. And now on to the meat of the matter.
I have spent some time in both Academia doing grant based research projects, and in the corporate world developing solutions. Both have a term called stakeholders. Stakeholders are a pretty big deal, as they are the ones who hold you accountable for your actions, decisions, and final product delivered. In fact, the reality of having stakeholders is so fundamental to an industry such as software development, there's a whole subdivision of thought devoted to optimizing the process of creating deliverables with stakeholders in mind. Agile, Spiral and the like being a few examples of these development techniques.
Who are the stakeholders in Armageddon? I'd say there's three. The owner, the staff, and the players. The first two being stakeholders should be obvious. The existence of the third stakeholder I think is proven by the simple understanding that if no one plays or enjoys your game, you do not have one. I feel as if a number of actions taken by staff, and presumably the owner, as of late have been without any interface, survey, or querying interest in the third stakeholder, the players.
Three prime examples of this are three large scale changes to player experience, modified without consultation or interface with the player base. First, was the removal of the sorcerer option from the game. Something I had been waiting years, nearly a decade, at a chance to experience. This change had me so incensed that I shut down, stopped talking to the boards, and even pulled away from the game for a while after letting it simmer. Other things contributed to this as well, the second and earlier example being the removal of Hlum nobles. The perception, regardless of reality, is that staff had decided to systematically remove options I enjoyed, anticipated, and craved from the game one by one. Over time, positive perception of attitudes and the fact that I very much like role playing drew me back. And things seemed well.
Then the removal of magick guilds was announced with no forewarning or consultation again. I am probably more incensed than I was with the previous example, however, a lack of communication solves nothing. So this time, I have chosen to speak my mind.
These kinds of sweeping changes to the base of the game we all play, unannounced and not discussed cripple my trust that the thing I enjoy will continue being the thing I enjoy. Certainly, changes can and should be made. Change itself is not bad, and not all changes will be appreciated by everyone. But the core problem is we have no voice in change.
If I have no voice in change, or my voice does not matter in the slightest, I cannot bring myself to trust those making changes. None the less, I'm willing to keep an open mind. Maybe there is a reasonable basis for this.
How do you feel?
Edits for a little cleanup on typos or grammar.
It's a big change.
I agree with the change, but only because I want magic subguilds.
Something like sorcerer however...
I wasn't around to have ever played one, but I think having a class that is 'straight magic I'm here to do magick hey did I mention magic' Is perfectly fine.
But then people cry low fantasy and I throw up internally or something.
Though you could probably throw a complaint in towards staff though whether or not anything would change probably not. Maybe you'll get a paragraph thats reassuring.
Wow...
You guys are reading WAY too much into this.
I didn't like the sorcerer change at all initially. But I didn't write a book report on why it's a shitty decision and make allusions to staff not caring what people think.
Seriously folks, chill out a minute, I don't even think ONE account has been approved for this yet, it just happened hours ago. You're all doom and glooming it before anything even happened.
Their explanation makes perfect sense to me. Everyone would be storing their characters to play the full magickers if they were told beforehand. It would definitely have dragged the quality of the game down.
I'd like to think staff are capable of changing a decision or meeting the player base half-way with some amendments after they have revealed their decision though. If they can(and they have) then why does it matter if we're told beforehand?
He's not gloom and dooming about anything. He's saying he doesn't see how this change was discussed or ran by player approval before it was made. We can read as much as we want into anything we want. It's a game we enjoy. We're going to talk about significant changes to it. I'd say you should try to see it from our point of view, but you've demonstrated time and time again that you are wholly unable of experiencing empathy. That may seem like a flame, but it is not, so please don't take it that way. I know what kind of person you are, Asmoth, so I will try to illustrate it to you. Please consider the following:
You like to eat chocolate chip cookies. The factory that makes chocolate chip cookies has changed them to white chocolate chip, and you can no longer get normal chocolate chips. You do not dislike white chocolate, but you also really liked normal chocolate. They did not mention they were going to do this before they did. How does that make you feel?
Quote from: MeTekillot on March 21, 2016, 09:43:49 PM
He's not gloom and dooming about anything. He's saying he doesn't see how this change was discussed or ran by player approval before it was made. We can read as much as we want into anything we want. It's a game we enjoy. We're going to talk about significant changes to it. I'd say you should try to see it from our point of view, but you've demonstrated time and time again that you are wholly unable of experiencing empathy. That may seem like a flame, but it is not, so please don't take it that way. I know what kind of person you are, Asmoth, so I will try to illustrate it to you. Please consider the following:
You like to eat chocolate chip cookies. The factory that makes chocolate chip cookies has changed them to white chocolate chip, and you can no longer get normal chocolate chips. You do not dislike white chocolate, but you also really liked normal chocolate. They did not mention they were going to do this before they did. How does that make you feel?
I am indeed not dooming and glooming, nor am I making a redundant topic about the magick changes. Appreciate the understanding.
I can completely understand how the OP, Kyros, feels about this.
but all I can say to the OP: Don't just like, give up.
This is the first (Second, technically) of many changes to come, and its bound to be changed more as things go on.
Armageddon MUD is in a period of serious change, and its going to be a long time before the dust settles.
Quote from: MeTekillot on March 21, 2016, 09:43:49 PM
He's not gloom and dooming about anything. He's saying he doesn't see how this change was discussed or ran by player approval before it was made. We can read as much as we want into anything we want. It's a game we enjoy. We're going to talk about significant changes to it. I'd say you should try to see it from our point of view, but you've demonstrated time and time again that you are wholly unable of experiencing empathy. That may seem like a flame, but it is not, so please don't take it that way. I know what kind of person you are, Asmoth, so I will try to illustrate it to you. Please consider the following:
You like to eat chocolate chip cookies. The factory that makes chocolate chip cookies has changed them to white chocolate chip, and you can no longer get normal chocolate chips. You do not dislike white chocolate, but you also really liked normal chocolate. They did not mention they were going to do this before they did. How does that make you feel?
I am not offended or upset, no flaming detected.
However, in your scenario, I go, "Shit, I liked those cookies! But these are good too." and that's the end of it.
Quote from: Rokal on March 21, 2016, 09:47:58 PM
I can completely understand how the OP, Kyros, feels about this.
but all I can say to the OP: Don't just like, give up.
This is the first (Second, technically) of many changes to come, and its bound to be changed more as things go on.
Armageddon MUD is in a period of serious change, and its going to be a long time before the dust settles.
I am old enough now that I rarely go into kneejerk reactions unless the situation demands them. But I am, and I used the word in its full clout, dismayed.
On the cookie analogy - which is actually a good one.
It doesn't matter to me that I like white chocolate chip cookies. What matters, is that I bought those cookies because they were milk chocolate. That was what attracted me to their package at the supermarket, that's why I bought those chocolate chip cookies, as opposed to someone else's chocolate chip cookies. Because I liked THOSE chocolate chip cookies.
The company has just eliminated the flavor that made me want to eat their cookies in the first place. If I wanted white chocolate chip cookies, I'd buy from the baker that makes a particular white chocolate chip cookie that I already know I enjoy, that I buy when I'm in the mood for white chocolate chip cookies.
But now - now I ALSO have to go elsewhere for milk chocolate chip cookies, because this company has decided that my enjoyment of their milk chocolate chip cookies no longer matters.
In a gradually dwindling market (MUDs, in this case), It is a very risky business venture to tell even 5% of your market that we are no longer going to serve you niche, so that we may better serve the 95%'s wishes.
Yeah, I definitely get why some people would be upset by this. Change is upsetting, especially when it's a change to something that you were used to and enjoyed. I'm not as much of a skill-focused player as a lot of you so I also understand this is a hard blow to those that really really love the skills aspect of the game.
If they split my precious pickpocket up into a bunch of thief subguilds I would probably be annoyed for awhile. Pickpockets are my armageddon comfort class.
But I think I'd also sort of be curious to experiment with new guild/subguild combinations and find a new playstyle I enjoy.
Armageddon's guilds have remained the same for a long, long, long time. Shaking things up like this adds a lot of interest for me to experiment with new concepts and role opportunities.
I'd encourage those who are dismayed to look at it as an opportunity for new and interesting memories rather than a squelching of any potential future fun.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on March 21, 2016, 10:15:25 PM
In a gradually dwindling market (MUDs, in this case), It is a very risky business venture to tell even 5% of your market that we are no longer going to serve you niche, so that we may better serve the 95%'s wishes.
You don't pay to play here.
This isn't a business.
You are still overreacting sir.
Staff are not obligated to check and make sure that players unanimously like every change we're planning before we work it into the game, and it's difficult to take feedback on this particular change seriously when literally only one player has tried the change so far and other players are twisting staff commentary to mean something else.
If you feel that a change to the game is driving you to take a break, or quit, then do it.
If you stop yourself and consider that that might be an over-reaction before you try out the change, then more power to you.
Ultimately, this is a game and we hope the players have fun playing it. As staff, we're going to continue to work on it and modernize it. When it's appropriate to ask players for suggestions before a change, we will (and have in the past for myriad other things).
I am both happy and upset at that cookie allegory.
I am happy because it seems, to me and my feelings, to fit and be easily explainable.
I am upset because now I want chocolate-chip cookies..and I've already had a large meal and can't eat anymore, but I have this craving for cookies >:(
I, too, am a bit miffed at the changes and elimination of some of my favorite guilds. Someone messed with my cheese! Stop moving my cheese!!
After my initial emotional feelings settle, I think I will be having some fun with the combinations this has opened up....at least, that is, until the as-for-now unannounced and unknown changes to mundane skills goes into effect. I'll sum up my reaction to this when it comes out, now:
More options, yay!
..My options aren't as "extensive" as the skill trees they once were...I can deal with that! Options, yay!
..Even more and strange combinations..I'm so lost..
They chopped up XXX and made XXX and XXX out of it!? But I liked the skill bundle it once was!!
..Okay, it's here to stay and it's growing on me.
*cough, cough*Shameless plug of my skill-based character concept thread*cough, cough*
Again, I am not condemning change itself. I like change, see the need for it, and realize that I, or others, will not like everything that changes. What's the book called? Who Moved the Cheese? My first boss ever made me read that at age 16. His voice was lighthearted as he said, 'welcome to the real world, my young padawan.' Change is adaptability is improvement is good. At least it can be. But this is neither a job nor a change adopting the metrics of the psychology of gaming or development modeling that I can see.
Personally, its not about the skills, its about goals, achievements, the chance to do something in the game substantial, to move and shake. Lots of these options have been gutted. No, most of these options have been gutted.
And based on the survey I just checked, negative reaction to the change is larger than the some of both neutral or positive, so over 2 to 1'ing the bias. That's more than 50%, not 5. And the gutting of the options I've mentioned is about 20% of the player types stand alone, more when recognized that people have blends of enjoyment. Interestingly enough, this change moves back towards the type of things I liked. Its a power increase.
But, I'm most miffed that I never saw it coming and the other stakeholders gave less than air about our opinions on it. Its a big change, a lasting one. And if our reactions are merited, in what form is this done? I have not seen it. This is a more meta topic than the change itself, the original post is quite clear about that.
I am also displeased that those who perceive this negatively are being lumped as 'over reacting' by you, Nergal. I think those are two very distinct cases.
Quote from: Asmoth on March 21, 2016, 10:19:44 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on March 21, 2016, 10:15:25 PM
In a gradually dwindling market (MUDs, in this case), It is a very risky business venture to tell even 5% of your market that we are no longer going to serve you niche, so that we may better serve the 95%'s wishes.
You don't pay to play here.
This isn't a business.
You are still overreacting sir.
This is a big change, people will be emotional about it, esp. if they believe it will negatively affect their future fun. I think it's fair to let people express that, so long as everyone remains civilized about it.
Quote from: LauraMars on March 21, 2016, 10:27:59 PM
Quote from: Asmoth on March 21, 2016, 10:19:44 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on March 21, 2016, 10:15:25 PM
In a gradually dwindling market (MUDs, in this case), It is a very risky business venture to tell even 5% of your market that we are no longer going to serve you niche, so that we may better serve the 95%'s wishes.
You don't pay to play here.
This isn't a business.
You are still overreacting sir.
This is a big change, people will be emotional about it, esp. if they believe it will negatively affect their future fun. I think it's fair to let people express that, so long as everyone remains civilized about it.
Fair point, just trying to keep people grounded in reality.
Quote from: Asmoth on March 21, 2016, 10:19:44 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on March 21, 2016, 10:15:25 PM
In a gradually dwindling market (MUDs, in this case), It is a very risky business venture to tell even 5% of your market that we are no longer going to serve you niche, so that we may better serve the 95%'s wishes.
You don't pay to play here.
This isn't a business.
You are still overreacting sir.
a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/Submit
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Well, to be fair, we aren't paying for it. There are pay to play MUDs. Do they also poll their players as to what they implement?
I worked at one. The Eternal City. They didn't give half a shit what anyone wanted and did a lot of terrible things to monkey up everything they could. They still have subscribers, though. Soo.
In a dwindling market, you'll probably play whatever you're used to, regardless of what goes on. :P
Y'all are kinda whiny. But hey, I've never liked magick, so I have no horse in this race.
Nobody complaining has addressed one of the major issues that would have arose if they did tell everyone beforehand: Storage, and countless people playing a certain type of character simply becuase it'll be the last time they can, instead of because it added to the game. I imagine a ton of those requests would be denied and the staff would have ended up pissing people off just as much, if not more.
Anyhow, Staff, being made up of players of the game, and having knowledge of what people like to play beyond the average player, really doesn't need to ask for input from the GDB if they're willing to amend and make changes to said decisions to smooth things out as much as they reasonably can afterwards.
That last bit is pretty key though.
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 10:38:06 PM
Well, to be fair, we aren't paying for it. There are pay to play MUDs. Do they also poll their players as to what they implement?
I worked at one. The Eternal City. They didn't give half a shit what anyone wanted and did a lot of terrible things to monkey up everything they could. They still have subscribers, though. Soo.
In a dwindling market, you'll probably play whatever you're used to, regardless of what goes on. :P
Y'all are kinda whiny. But hey, I've never liked magick, so I have no horse in this race.
I'd point you to GS, from 3 to 4, and the impact that had on subscriptions. They too held their cards to their chest and laid them out only at the end. Lots trumpeted the joy of the changes done there, but the reality is they cut the base in half quickly, and its spiraled down ever since.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 21, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
Nobody complaining has addressed one of the major issues that would have arose if they did tell everyone beforehand: Storage, and countless people playing a certain type of character simply becuase it'll be the last time they can, instead of because it added to the game. I imagine a ton of those requests would be denied and the staff would have ended up pissing people off just as much, if not more.
Anyhow, Staff, being made up of players of the game, and having knowledge of what people like to play beyond the average player, really doesn't need to ask for input from the GDB if they're willing to amend and make changes to said decisions to smooth things out as much as they reasonably can afterwards.
That last bit is pretty key though.
I am curious of an example of this smoothing out through player input that can be demonstrated.
I think they're being pleasant and patient trying to explain things and people are automatically shitting all over them.
But I guess that's par for the course around here.
You would never get away with the way some of the posters here have posted about the staff at other games. Ever. Just keep that in mind that they're humans, too. Please.
I don't know what GS is. But, since i have real life experience with it: The Eternal City has been around for slightly less time than ArmageddonMUD. They have never had a resurge in players like we have. They hold steady at maybe a max of 50 players, but more often average 20-30. They have had the same core playerbase for decades now. Even with all of the changes that have occurred, completely crippling some skillsets while insanely benefiting others, people STILL stayed around, because they had faith, they had nothing else to do, or they enjoyed one another more than the skill changes.
It's unfair to lack trust in all staff because of the changes made. I don't think it's fair the way some of you are speaking to them, either. You can't have a civil discussion while accusing staff that they're saying you suck. You can't treat this change poorly until we give it a go.
If it sucks, maybe it'll change. But it's not nice to sit there and bemoan shit that has been implemented for less than a day.
Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.
QuoteYou would never get away with the way some of the posters here have posted about the staff at other games. Ever. Just keep that in mind that they're humans, too. Please.
Challenging decisions and defending assertions is not impolite. There has been no flaming or anything excessive. It's heated, but civil, because it affects people. I've seen far worse on game forums, far worse, with no consequences whatsoever. So this is not an accurate statement.
Quoteif they're willing to amend and make changes to said decisions to smooth things out as much as they reasonably can afterwards.
This is indeed key, because over time, this has been a weakness of most staff teams on Armageddon, not a strength. Generally, it's a 'just go with it and we'll fix it later' until people stop fighting about it, and they move on. Which you're well aware of, I assume, since you noted how key it was. And this is why the upfront discussion is valuable. Most of the time, problems with new concepts to be introduced to the game are indeed mentioned and elaborated on in the opening thread. Whether it's determined to actually be a problem is the issue, which is why it has to be argued.
Well, maybe we can take a deep breath in, exhale, and just maybe save our judgment and our immediate finger pointing and inflammatory speech until we actually give it a go.
Sometimes you gotta dive in, give it a go. If you swim, great. If you sink, it sucks. Make it known you think it's not so great. But use kind language. Don't be like my kid and call me a fucking twat waffle and go in timeout for the whole day. Just... realize there are people on the other side, too. They've thought about this. They want you to give it a go with them.
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 10:53:04 PM
Well, maybe we can take a deep breath in, exhale, and just maybe save our judgment and our immediate finger pointing and inflammatory speech until we actually give it a go.
Sometimes you gotta dive in, give it a go. If you swim, great. If you sink, it sucks. Make it known you think it's not so great. But use kind language. Don't be like my kid and call me a fucking twat waffle and go in timeout for the whole day. Just... realize there are people on the other side, too. They've thought about this. They want you to give it a go with them.
...where has there been...any name calling? Or unkind language?
Quote from: Kryos on March 21, 2016, 10:41:40 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 21, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
Nobody complaining has addressed one of the major issues that would have arose if they did tell everyone beforehand: Storage, and countless people playing a certain type of character simply becuase it'll be the last time they can, instead of because it added to the game. I imagine a ton of those requests would be denied and the staff would have ended up pissing people off just as much, if not more.
Anyhow, Staff, being made up of players of the game, and having knowledge of what people like to play beyond the average player, really doesn't need to ask for input from the GDB if they're willing to amend and make changes to said decisions to smooth things out as much as they reasonably can afterwards.
That last bit is pretty key though.
I am curious of an example of this smoothing out through player input that can be demonstrated.
They have both made changes on the fly to appease players AND asked for player input for these things. If you're asking me to go digging around for linked examples I'm afraid I'm way too lazy. One, for instance, would be the sorcerer sub-guilds doubling their magical spells from the time they were implemented to now for changes after a lot of feedback on those changes.
If you're asking how they could smooth things out? These are just things I think are a good idea:
Re-adding drovian/elkrosian later with some added spells that has some more flavor and uniqueness.
Making a fleshed out nilazi-type class or subguild that ISNT a magicker but a guild closer to Psion,(as in no word combination bullshit... I'm assuming psions don't have word combinations, heh)
Allow your magicker-subs a way to access a full-blown magicker skillset through in-game means that are hard to achieve.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 21, 2016, 10:54:46 PM
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 10:53:04 PM
Well, maybe we can take a deep breath in, exhale, and just maybe save our judgment and our immediate finger pointing and inflammatory speech until we actually give it a go.
Sometimes you gotta dive in, give it a go. If you swim, great. If you sink, it sucks. Make it known you think it's not so great. But use kind language. Don't be like my kid and call me a fucking twat waffle and go in timeout for the whole day. Just... realize there are people on the other side, too. They've thought about this. They want you to give it a go with them.
...where has there been...any name calling? Or unkind language?
In the other thread. I'm not digging through it. It's just been offensive to me, reading it.
I realize you get really impassioned, for one, about the code stuff. I don't. I like to think we're both good RPers, though. I'm not singling you out, either. But in the other thread there was finger pointing, implicating staff accusing players of shit and it was a complete mindfuck to me. I just guess that I value the staff here more than most people, because I've played games (and staffed them) like The Eternal City, where you don't get dick, and you get banned for even the slightest hint of unhappiness.
I don't know. This is worse than when people were riled up about sorcerers, probably because it affects a larger portion of the player base. But I don't think that we can really say, for sure, until we give this change a go, that we don't like it. And we can be pleasant about it, or at least, not ugly?
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 10:45:35 PM
I don't know what GS is. But, since i have real life experience with it: The Eternal City has been around for slightly less time than ArmageddonMUD. They have never had a resurge in players like we have. They hold steady at maybe a max of 50 players, but more often average 20-30. They have had the same core playerbase for decades now. Even with all of the changes that have occurred, completely crippling some skillsets while insanely benefiting others, people STILL stayed around, because they had faith, they had nothing else to do, or they enjoyed one another more than the skill changes.
It's unfair to lack trust in all staff because of the changes made. I don't think it's fair the way some of you are speaking to them, either. You can't have a civil discussion while accusing staff that they're saying you suck. You can't treat this change poorly until we give it a go.
If it sucks, maybe it'll change. But it's not nice to sit there and bemoan shit that has been implemented for less than a day.
Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.
Gemstone III (now Gemstone IV) was the biggest mud in the world. Hundreds online at nearly all times. Hailing back from the pre real internet days, such as AoL only access. I used it as an example for that reason, and a tertiary reasons that part of the reason they changed the game was me, I had played it since '95 when I was barely double digit age, and the similarity of their make a change processes and the results(modernization as a focus, no player surveying/input pre action).
And I count 1 instance in this thread so far of someone having borderline bad intentions. Pretty happy with the tone of discourse so far.
Lastly, its not logical, or rational, to say someone can't tell you how the fallout of removal of options will impact their enjoyment, or how the lack of communication impacts their perceptions of staff before trying it out. Its not about just the latest change.
Yes, this thread. But the other one is full of heated salty craziness. I think we can tone the heated, salty craziness down and apply it liberally to our popcorn, instead.
Edited due to your edit: I think we can all have feelings and voice them. But I don't think we need to be ugly, as people are being. I think it's just ridiculous. It's not messing up characters right now, as we speak. It's something that is going to gradually come into play as main guild magickers phase out and are replaced by these.
I don't think that the staff has breached any sort of trust, but then, I'm used to this sort of thing happening more frequently, more half-assedly, and more, in generally, brokenly, than the way things have been implemented here.
I understand that you are upset because this is another straw on your back. I hope you'll stay around because I've played with you and I think you're the bee's knees. But I don't think this is going to break anyone's experience. If it does, then detail it as it happens. We can only present hard, factual evidence to staff and hope they listen to it if it's not working. But, I guess I'm simply glad that they would even look at what I have to say about my experience with this new subguild stuff in the first place. Not every game is so lucky.
I trust staff in the last year more than I ever have before.
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 11:01:55 PM
Yes, this thread. But the other one is full of heated salty craziness. I think we can tone the heated, salty craziness down and apply it liberally to our popcorn, instead.
I . . . can say ought but I agree. Civil discourse is the best approach(even made a thread about that a few days back). Perhaps apply the fire hose over there?
Eh, the same rule has been in place since the beginning of my "career" here. The rule is simple:
It's staff's game. Player input has always been a secondary consideration if it is asked for at all. Like it or leave it. Those are the only options that have ever existed and ever will exist most likely.
*shrug*
We are all still here playing it, for the most part, so they must be doing something right even if you feel they do some things wrong.
There are always going to be things we like or don't like about the game. The game is big enough however that we can -usually- find something to enjoy even if we don't enjoy everything about it.
That's what I do.
Like Boog, I'm a long time player, under a couple different names over the last two decades. The one thing that I am saddened by the most, is that I only last year got the ability to play a sorcerer, unfortunately I got that last Karma after the change(le sigh) and I'll not be able to play one. I really, really, really, have faith in the staff they are doing whats best for the game. While excited about the up coming changes to the guilds, I don't understand the removal of the three mage guilds completely. Maybe there is a reason as others have been suspect of, I.E. creating more Sorcerer options with the Nilazi, elks and drovs. A little shake up is good, but this is one hell of a shake up.
#pleasedon'tbreakapartpsionsbeforeIcanplayone
#mycharacterslivetolongtocheckoutthechangessincebeforethesorcseperation
I believe in the original world of Athas only fire, water, wind, and earth elementalists existed.
That might have something to do with it.
If it didn't, we are mimicking it unintentionally anyways. *shrug*
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 10:45:35 PM
Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.
I've been saying that for years.
Both parts, actually.
Quote from: Vwest on March 21, 2016, 11:22:44 PM
Quote from: boog on March 21, 2016, 10:45:35 PM
Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.
I've been saying that for years.
Both parts, actually.
He has a sexy voice and he doesn't pay attention to the GDB. Let's both do this. Get sexy voices and be more like ghosty and get away from the GDB.
Quote from: Desertman on March 21, 2016, 11:16:16 PM
Eh, the same rule has been in place since the beginning of my "career" here. The rule is simple:
It's staff's game. Player input has always been a secondary consideration if it is asked for at all. Like it or leave it. Those are the only options that have ever existed and ever will exist most likely.
*shrug*
We are all still here playing it, for the most part, so they must be doing something right even if you feel they do some things wrong.
There are always going to be things we like or don't like about the game. The game is big enough however that we can -usually- find something to enjoy even if we don't enjoy everything about it.
That's what I do.
I'm going to refute this with numbers. Look at the number of unique accounts created every month, then the log ins. We aren't all still playing.
Edit: weeeee, typos.
Quote from: Kryos on March 21, 2016, 11:28:40 PM
Quote from: Desertman on March 21, 2016, 11:16:16 PM
Eh, the same rule has been in place since the beginning of my "career" here. The rule is simple:
It's staff's game. Player input has always been a secondary consideration if it is asked for at all. Like it or leave it. Those are the only options that have ever existed and ever will exist most likely.
*shrug*
We are all still here playing it, for the most part, so they must be doing something right even if you feel they do some things wrong.
There are always going to be things we like or don't like about the game. The game is big enough however that we can -usually- find something to enjoy even if we don't enjoy everything about it.
That's what I do.
I'm going to refute this with numbers. Look at the number of unique accounts created every month, then the log ins. We aren't all still playing.
Edit: weeeee, typos.
I'm going to refute that with just pointing out I didn't say what you are saying I said.
And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm?
Also, please elaborate. How did I miss the mark?
Quote from: Kryos on March 21, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm?
Also, please elaborate. How did I miss the mark?
I have no opinion that I wish to share on the topic of the black and white "accept it or leave" front. My opinion doesn't matter and it likely wouldn't be well received. Suffice to say we are likely in agreement.
I stated we are all still here playing, "for the most part". I never stated we are all still here playing.
How you want to interpret "for the most part" is entirely up to you and how you are feeling currently as it was intentionally left open to interpretation.
Quote from: Kryos on March 21, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm?
Also, please elaborate. How did I miss the mark?
I don't think anyone said accept it or leave.
But I do think people have been trying to get across that player desire versus game programming, don't always jive.
Thanks!
The we are playing for the most part, to me, meant there was a significant hold on players. Or at least an expected degree of retention on a yearly window.
As it is, in a thread a few years past I did an analysis of what must be happening by the numbers from a third party site that tracks player logins to muds and compared it to the new accounts/unique log ins. The result is that older players gravitated out as the trend. If I had the raw data from the game, I could plug in some network analysis through some tools I have access to and probably come up with a clearer picture. But the picture was not reinforcing before increased granularity. Older players were leaving. This is expected, to some degree, by real life, but not to the degree observed.
Edit Here: in that thread, the new accounts kept as offered by a member of staff were factored in to what must be old accounts lost, which is why I had some certainty.
Another reason I am beating the bushes on what is no doubt a touchy subject.
Quote from: Asmoth on March 21, 2016, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Kryos on March 21, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm?
Also, please elaborate. How did I miss the mark?
I don't think anyone said accept it or leave.
But I do think people have been trying to get across that player desire versus game programming, don't always jive.
My original post goes on a bit of length on how this is the exact opposite of true. This is not to say I or hopefully others who share some similarity of sentiment couldn't be reasoned with or satiated with proof of why I was off base, or a good thrust of logic against it.
I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end. But!
I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it. I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation. Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release. You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.
Quote from: nauta on March 22, 2016, 12:42:10 AM
I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end. But!
I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it. I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation. Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release. You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.
What took me a long ass time to realize about this game, and really any mud, is that it's not a democracy.
They don't have to get our permission, or our vote.
We play or we don't play, that is the absolute extent of our influence.
Can we propose ideas, complaints and input? Sure.
But it in no way, has any weight moreso than the staff puts on it.
If they like an idea and run with it, great, you helped shape the game.
If they don't like an idea and do the opposite, you still are here at their allowance, and you can voice your complaint but don't feel entitled to anything.
To put it in slightly simple, but I think effective view...
This is a dictatorship and the rulers are the staff. This is China, not the USA. (changed from cuba to china, because technically china is ran by a group of people, where cuba is one.)
Quote from: Asmoth on March 22, 2016, 12:47:25 AM
Quote from: nauta on March 22, 2016, 12:42:10 AM
I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end. But!
I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it. I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation. Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release. You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.
What took me a long ass time to realize about this game, and really any mud, is that it's not a democracy.
They don't have to get our permission, or our vote.
We play or we don't play, that is the absolute extent of our influence.
Can we propose ideas, complaints and input? Sure.
But it in no way, has any weight moreso than the staff puts on it.
If they like an idea and run with it, great, you helped shape the game.
If they don't like an idea and do the opposite, you still are here at allowance, and you can voice your complaint but don't feel entitled to anything.
To put it in slightly simple, but I think effective view...
This is a dictatorship and the rules are the staff.
To be blunt, your post contradict themselves. To paraphrase:
"I don't think anyone said accept it or leave." "This is a dictatorship, accept or leave."
So, apparently, you, me, and a few others are saying the options are accept or leave.
I do not find that to be modern, respectful, or compelling reason to keep the faith.
I've said that several times before over the course of years, Asmoth. It holds true now as it ever has.
However...that doesn't remove the need for feedback. For data. For overall reactions. When a suitable portion of the playerbase (whatever one finds suitable, at least) isn't content with something, though, and that something is a change rather than the standard...it is usually in a 'best interest' paradigm to figure things out. Unless the goal of said changes -is- to push out certain schools of thought and encourage another. Which is not me saying anything, just saying that it usually fits the model to listen and hear, unless there is a grander plan at stake.
The assurance here is that there is a grander plan. So we'll see, but as noted before...I am highly skeptical.
Quote from: Kryos on March 22, 2016, 12:53:06 AM
Quote from: Asmoth on March 22, 2016, 12:47:25 AM
Quote from: nauta on March 22, 2016, 12:42:10 AM
I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end. But!
I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it. I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation. Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release. You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.
What took me a long ass time to realize about this game, and really any mud, is that it's not a democracy.
They don't have to get our permission, or our vote.
We play or we don't play, that is the absolute extent of our influence.
Can we propose ideas, complaints and input? Sure.
But it in no way, has any weight moreso than the staff puts on it.
If they like an idea and run with it, great, you helped shape the game.
If they don't like an idea and do the opposite, you still are here at allowance, and you can voice your complaint but don't feel entitled to anything.
To put it in slightly simple, but I think effective view...
This is a dictatorship and the rules are the staff.
To be blunt, your post contradict themselves. To paraphrase:
"I don't think anyone said accept it or leave." "This is a dictatorship, accept or leave."
So, apparently, you, me, and a few others are saying the options are accept or leave.
I do not find that to be modern, respectful, or compelling reason to keep the faith.
I am not giving you an ultimatum and I don't think staff is either.
But I am trying to instill that beyond offering opinions, which we all have, over and over since the game went down and this new shit popped up.
That's it. This isn't a war of attrition where we need to keep fighting back and forth with our opinion, because it's a dictatorship,
we don't hold any votes.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 22, 2016, 12:53:48 AM
I've said that several times before over the course of years, Asmoth. It holds true now as it ever has.
However...that doesn't remove the need for feedback. For data. For overall reactions. When a suitable portion of the playerbase (whatever one finds suitable, at least) isn't content with something, though, and that something is a change rather than the standard...it is usually in a 'best interest' paradigm to figure things out. Unless the goal of said changes -is- to push out certain schools of thought and encourage another. Which is not me saying anything, just saying that it usually fits the model to listen and hear, unless there is a grander plan at stake.
The assurance here is that there is a grander plan. So we'll see, but as noted before...I am highly skeptical.
I can respect all that, but they may very well totally change main guilds and this is going to happen all over again.
Right, we don't hold votes. We are in complete agreement. However, the ultimatum is implicit in the fact we don't hold votes. That isn't even muddied or unclear. If you can't vote or affect what you participate in you: participate because X reason, or don't participate. This is not a false dichotomy, this is the choice you have.
A bit more of an opinion is the fact that this state of affairs is wrong. This isn't the 90's, and modern development techniques, a lot of modern social sciences and psychology, and modern software development models all hold that this state of affairs is wrong. History shows its not fruitful. I happen to side with those lines of thinking, especially participating in such a situation.
Quote from: Kryos on March 22, 2016, 01:04:11 AM
Right, we don't hold votes. We are in complete agreement. However, the ultimatum is implicit in the fact we don't hold votes. That isn't even muddied or unclear. If you can't vote or affect what you participate in you: participate because X reason, or don't participate. This is not a false dichotomy, this is the choice you have.
A bit more of an opinion is the fact that this state of affairs is wrong. This isn't the 90's, and modern development techniques, a lot of modern social sciences and psychology, and modern software development models all hold that this state of affairs is wrong. History shows its not fruitful. I happen to side with those lines of thinking, especially participating in such a situation.
I respect your opinion totally. You seem like a very intelligent and well spoken guy.
And you very well may be right about this having been done incorrectly, time will tell.
However, none of that matters, if this is wrong, right or indifferent, me you and joe armer, don't hold any sway.
Why are you pushing on a brick wall and expecting it to move?
Ever read Sanderson's Stormlight trilogy? Ever hear some of the great inspirational quotes of human kind? I'll stick to the former, since fantasy is the theme of our shared game. "Someone has to start, son."
Edit: And no, I'm not trying to elevate myself with that reference, its just the context of it feels appropriate. Humble pie for me tonight, just in case.
Quote from: Kryos on March 22, 2016, 01:16:22 AM
Ever read Sanderson's Stormlight trilogy? Ever hear some of the great inspirational quotes of human kind? I'll stick to the former, since fantasy is the theme of our shared game. "Someone has to start, son."
...
This isn't some vast injustice that affects mankind.
Let's not go all psuedo-patriotic...
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/57634661.jpg)
I'm going to bed, I have spent more time trying to reason with folks on the GDB than I have actually playing the game tonight and I have work in the morning.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55046370.jpg)
With great trepidation I am going to make a brief comment on this thread.
We do look at player opinion as one factor when we're making changes to the game. But ultimately someone has to make the call to change something, and with a pretty sizable audience of interested parties (players) - we'd never be able to change anything if we waited for universal agreement (or even a super majority) on proposed changes - especially something of this scale.
I think there's been uh.. one, maybe two PCs rolled up under the new system thus far. I am pretty sure that they haven't affected the game world in any meaningful way yet. Literally all the discussion thus far is based exclusively upon conjecture.
Speaking personally, also as a player, I can feel empathy for the 'sense of loss' some people have with the pure elementalist guilds disappearing - but as they say when one door closes another opens. I definitely think that is true in this case.
For A:
The context is that, one of the central characters of the novels was attempting to beat down what was perceived to be a brick wall, with no outside expectation of success. Many around ostracized or lambasted the character for attempting to do this. Many shared sentiments but didn't believe it was possible, etc. When faced with this, he reminded himself of his father, years ago, who had faced a similar situation yet persevered despite.
I do have a conviction that this is a needed change. I do not have a conviction that skullduggery, rattling sabers, or some other over the top reaction is required. Just demonstrate and stand firm.
For S:
Thanks for contributing. And I fully understand that leaders must execute decisions and that decisions can have blow back or be polarizing. I've been in those shoes, by god, have I. My problem is I can't to seem to observe this player polling or reaction to player wants, and it thus feel its not there. And I am actually all about the addition of the subguilds themselves as a side note, and don't believe anyone should jump the gun about what they mean and do. But its that never saw it coming never got asked that hurts, bad.
Edit: I'm about 1/9 on typos tonight. Blargh.
Quote from: seidhr on March 22, 2016, 01:33:31 AM
I think there's been uh.. one, maybe two PCs rolled up under the new system thus far. I am pretty sure that they haven't affected the game world in any meaningful way yet. Literally all the discussion thus far is based exclusively upon conjecture.
While the long-term effects of this change can't really be predicted with certainty, it seems like a self-evident fact that magickers are now objectively superior to mundanes at literally everything. That's what makes me incredibly wary of this change. It doesn't take time to discover that this is the case, it's automatically a given. I don't mind the removal of the original guilds, but I feel like this change completely craps on mundane characters as they no longer have
anything that they're actually best at. Not one thing. Magickers now trump mundanes, game-mechanically, in every conceivable fashion.
Magickers are now full-blown mundanes with spells on top, sacrificing nothing but whatever mundane subguild they could have chosen instead, and even the most conservative guess at the spell selections makes them seem much, much, much better in terms of coded power than any mundane subguild could be. I don't think that concern, at least, can be waved off as "it's too soon to tell." It's kind if indisputable, unless one were to opine that having something like city stealth on a ranger or middling scan on a warrior is codedly stronger than having an arsenal of spells. Which, I mean, let's be real, I hope nobody will try to make such a claim.
I'm talking about code, of course, not intangible things like "a magicker has to be careful" or "people won't be helpful to gemmed warriors." Socially and thematically, they might have disadvantages, but they're certainly objectively superior to mundanes in every tangible way. They might have been more powerful than mundanes in a general sort of way, before, but not across the board. Non-magick characters had their own niches and things that made it feel worthwhile to play them from the perspective of coded worth. I'd like to know what staff has to say about this, because this is the thing that we
know will be a gigantic change from how it used to be, even if we allow for the possibility that the lore and roleplay surrounding magickers will remain as it always was.
I feel like there needed to have been some kind of stipulation, like slightly lower skillcaps or something, to counterbalance the addition of spells to mundane guilds. I'm assuming there's nothing like this as nothing has been announced. I don't think magickers needed to be fully as good at mundane skills as mundane characters are in order to satisfy the need for them to feel like "people first, magickers second." If anything, this now seems like magickers will be chosen precisely for their coded superiority as they no longer really have that much of a distinctive niche in the game, being simply mundanes with some spells on top.
Quote from: seidhr on March 22, 2016, 01:33:31 AM\
Speaking personally, also as a player, I can feel empathy for the 'sense of loss' some people have with the pure elementalist guilds disappearing - but as they say when one door closes another opens. I definitely think that is true in this case.
I'm just curious why one door has to close for another to open. Cake + eating?
I am glad the staff made these changes.
The reasons people want the old sorcerer's are the same reason I DON'T want to see the old sorcerers back. There is too much coded power and not enough RP opportunities with regular mundane (and gemmers) that don't feel like one side should be shivering in their boots the entire time.
With these changes you can RP a magicker who is a person FIRST, a person who is just a hunter, warrior, someone normal who just happens to have magickal abilities. While from a coded point of view thats still incredibly power (though warrior/stealth is still OP) but more importantly it opens up an incredibly amount of RP opportunity.
And now with these changes staff is taking a look at those RP opportunities more closely, maybe now water magickers might have some more interesting RP opportunities. These are the things players have been asking for YEARS.
The days of CAM and super powered beings are gone. Good riddance. I look forward to the more whole-some RP opportunities with this new version of magickers.
Quote from: Bogre on March 22, 2016, 02:10:42 AM
Quote from: seidhr on March 22, 2016, 01:33:31 AM\
Speaking personally, also as a player, I can feel empathy for the 'sense of loss' some people have with the pure elementalist guilds disappearing - but as they say when one door closes another opens. I definitely think that is true in this case.
I'm just curious why one door has to close for another to open. Cake + eating?
This is one of the schools of thought of modern development, especially applied to games.
Quote from: Dresan on March 22, 2016, 02:25:11 AM
I am glad the staff made these changes.
The reasons people want the old sorcerer's are the same reason I DON'T want to see the old sorcerers back. There is too much coded power and not enough RP opportunities with regular mundane (and gemmers) that don't feel like one side should be shivering in their boots the entire time.
With these changes you can RP a magicker who is a person FIRST, a person who is just a hunter, warrior, someone normal who just happens to have magickal abilities. While from a coded point of view thats still incredibly power (though warrior/stealth is still OP) but more importantly it opens up an incredibly amount of RP opportunity.
And now with these changes staff is taking a look at those RP opportunities more closely, maybe now water magickers might have some more interesting RP opportunities. These are the things players have been asking for YEARS.
The days of CAM and super powered beings are gone. Good riddance. I look forward to the more whole-some RP opportunities with this new version of magickers.
I'd point you to the log submission area. Where a Sorcerer by reference has entertained 7 high powered roles, and by the nature of that engagement, absolutely everyone under them to some degree. Sorcerer drove one of the most sweeping plots in recent history. And that's before we add in all the non referenced interactions.
This CAM malarky is a bit often pulled out, never modernly referenced. Only references I know of are 2, both of which are in the logs posted about awesome RP and world changing politics and events.
Lastly, this thread isn't about discussing the changes themselves, but the manner in which they were executed and the perceived lack of impact players have on changes. They happen, we offer our response in futility, and that is bad.
First of all, I respect your opinion on sorcerers, but no I don't agree with you on any level, I'm glad they are gone. Secondly its the period where CAM existed that is referenced, and yes to those who holed themselves up in Tuluk back in the day to avoid that, it was a terrible time. However, again, thats my opinion, I'm sure some disagree.
Lastly, there has been tons of feedback over the years over this sort of magickers one recent thread bringing up the issues that these changes can potentially address. There has also been a lot of warning that guild changes have been coming for a while now, perhaps you didn't think they would be this dramatic, thats fair. However even with the sorcerer changes, after some feedback they were modified and changed again with their spells recently doubled.
Just in case: Warrior/ranger/assassin changes are coming too.
Quote from: Dresan on March 22, 2016, 03:02:17 AM
First of all, I respect your opinion on sorcerers, but no I don't agree with you on any level, I'm glad they are gone. Secondly its the period where CAM existed that is referenced, and yes to those who holed themselves up in Tuluk back in the day to avoid that, it was a terrible time. However, again, thats my opinion, I'm sure some disagree.
Lastly, there has been tons of feedback over the years over this sort of magickers one recent thread bringing up the issues that these changes can potentially address. There has also been a lot of warning that guild changes have been coming for a while now, perhaps you didn't think they would be this dramatic, thats fair, however even with the sorcerer changes, after they were modified a bit more based on that feedback.
Just in case: Warrior/ranger/assassin changes are coming too.
Deletion is not change its removal. We were not warned of removal. Snark is not necessary and undermines a point it might be trying to convey. We have no proof or data demonstrating player input had any impact on sorc change 1 or 2. All observable evidence actually points to it not. Further discussion of that should be over in the discussion of that thread.
The jist of this thread is that our opinions were not pursued, the changes were not previewed, and our reactions seem to have no impact on them. This cycle is in place now and has been in place for quite some time. One of the undertones here is that alienates players. Happy to read and discuss about that all day long, even if our opinions do differ.
I definitely understand why you feel the way you do, Kryos, but I'm not sure anyone would feel any better if players had been consulted.
If the staff had ran a poll and promised to go with the popular option, everyone who didn't vote for the popular option would feel like they weren't being listened to. Or they'd worry about the motivations behind players who chose the popular option (i.e. do they only want mage subguilds so they can play a warrior who throws fireballs?).
If staff had opened up a GDB thread for players to discuss the changes and then implemented them anyway, players would feel like they weren't listened to because people opposed to the change didn't sway the staff's vote.
If staff had opened up a GDB thread for players to discuss the changes, then decided not to go through with the changes because players changed their minds, it would mean everyone who was pro-changes would feel like their voices didn't matter. Also it would mean all the staff members who put time into coming up with the proposal could have spent that time on something else.
If the staff consulted a certain group of players (say, everyone above a certain karma level or everybody currently playing a full guild mage) then some players would be upset everybody wasn't consulted.
If staff members announced the coming changes with an amnesty period (everybody has three months to make the drovian they've always wanted!) then the game would have been flooded with magickers. Also, people would still be upset because they were told inevitable change is coming and they didn't get any feedback.
I really can't see a way for it to have been done that wouldn't leave some people feeling upset.
Again, not trying to diminish your feelings because they're valid, but I think people would be upset regardless of how it was done, so I can't blame the game's staff at all for going for the "rip off the bandaid quickly" approach.
I don't think we're posing the scenario of "If you did this, nobody would be upset" so much as stressing that "Doing something with no input from the players is a good way to upset, probably, as many people as possible", which if consideration of number of upset people is the thing you're taking into account, perhaps not the best course of action.
On the changes themselves, I'm not sure what to say on them as I have yet to give the new subguilds a try. I love seeing updates and new things put into the game. I don't particularly agree with the removal of full elementalists, however, because that leaves players less choices to play out. While I have little to no experience with shadow/lightning/void elementalists, I felt they had set Armageddon apart from what it had been based on, originally, and I hope that these elements make it back into the game.
Personally, I'm for having big changes similar to these being discussed with the playerbase. There's plenty of benefit on having different perspectives on a draft of proposed changes, and giving the players a chance to point out things that may or may not work out. And while there will, in the end, still be disagreement over the decision made, at least the playerbase can trust that staff is willing to discuss large changes before establishing them. That's something I can really appreciate in a game. All of us play the game to enjoy it, so, IMO, players should be given some voice on changes, to ensure continued enjoyment.
That's nothing new, though. It's always how staff have rolled.
It's the Staff's game. We can either play it or not. Or app for staff and try and have some input ourselves.
Pretty awesome post, Fathi.
My rebuttal will come in the form of observing some numbers from the polls put up. If this exact same change had been put into effect, with a bit of premeasuring from the pbase, it looks like a huge amount of the players who are really upset by the change itself (not the ouch, why? of this thread) would have been absolutely cool with it if in some capacity, regular mages continued to exist.
I'd be willing to bet some would be still be upset or compelled to passion by the changes, but you'd have appeased two portions of the crowd. One: those who saw mages go poof and were very displeased. Two, anyone who feels somewhat similarly to me.
That's not a huge amount of work for a lot of pay off.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 22, 2016, 04:11:36 AM
That's nothing new, though. It's always how staff have rolled.
It's the Staff's game. We can either play it or not. Or app for staff and try and have some input ourselves.
Not sure why I have to keep saying this, but yes. You're right. And that's what we're talking about here, so redundancy is not contribution.
Edit: What, why?
Quote from: Kryos on March 22, 2016, 04:12:56 AM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 22, 2016, 04:11:36 AM
That's nothing new, though. It's always how staff have rolled.
It's the Staff's game. We can either play it or not. Or app for staff and try and have some input ourselves.
Not sure why I have to keep saying this, but yes. You're right. And that's what we're talking about here, so redundancy is not contribution.
Edit: What, why?
This thread is kind of redundant though, don't you think? It comes up in one form or another during every big change.
Staff: We've changed this thing.
Players: Why didn't you consult us!
Staff: Because it's impossible to please everyone and we'd never get anything done.
Players: *huff*
Some players will stop playing, most will continue. Few weeks pass, game continues as normal.
It's fine to be upset and want to contribute and critique changes. But it doesn't really change anything. Best thing you can do is shrug and go along for the ride if you think the ride's still worth taking.
At hem. Again, that's exactly what I'm trying to address. And some numbers analysis discussed previously in this thread shows that your assumption of most going along for the ride makes no sense.
This is not lashing out at staff. In fact, if I had truly dreadful opinions of staff I'd never consider putting this thread up in the first place for a few reasons. The opposite is true. I think pretty highly of them. I like the cut of their gib, and I trust that having reasonable discussion even on sensitive topics is a ok or even cool. I do not, however, like this aspect of their methodology.
This is saying, I think your approach could be improved, I'm not alone in this for many reasons, and that players are stakeholders. And if you think that's not worth saying or putting up, more power to you for having that opinion. But can you back it up? Can you look at any of the contributions as to why its problematic and challenge them?
There is only one worthwhile means of addressing it: acknowledging that the only decision you can really make is whether you want to be along for the ride or not.
The best you can really hope to achieve as a player is point out things that Staff might not have foreseen - i.e. my question to Rathustra about whether touched PCs will contribute to tribal clans' caps on magick users.
Polling numbers after a big change are always skewed and dramatic, and invariably amount to no appreciable negative impact on the game after a couple of weeks.
Edit: You may see incremental improvements. Staff didn't forcestore every nilazi, elkran, or drovian currently in the game (like they did with Sorcs back when. Or rapists, I presume). So maybe on the next big change you'll get the early warning thread you want or whatever it is.
Really, this thread will show you the general staff response to your plea for "changing the methodology"
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50862.msg934797.html#msg934797
Staff are staff. Best we as players can do is roll with the changes, raise red flags we see, and if we don't like the game we don't play the game.
Quote from: MeTekillot on March 22, 2016, 04:09:48 AM
I don't think we're posing the scenario of "If you did this, nobody would be upset" so much as stressing that "Doing something with no input from the players is a good way to upset, probably, as many people as possible", which if consideration of number of upset people is the thing you're taking into account, perhaps not the best course of action.
Yeah, this is gonna have to be one of those agree to disagree things. I feel like the proportions of the playerbase bothered by the changes would have been relatively similar, simply because different people are irked by different things. I think players who were happy to have input would have been canceled out by players who were upset to have input that then wasn't listened to, y'know? But this is based on nothing but me pulling it out of my ass so I totally can't back it up. It's just feelz.
Quote from: Kryos on March 22, 2016, 04:11:57 AM
Pretty awesome post, Fathi.
My rebuttal will come in the form of observing some numbers from the polls put up. If this exact same change had been put into effect, with a bit of premeasuring from the pbase, it looks like a huge amount of the players who are really upset by the change itself (not the ouch, why? of this thread) would have been absolutely cool with it if in some capacity, regular mages continued to exist.
I'd be willing to bet some would be still be upset or compelled to passion by the changes, but you'd have appeased two portions of the crowd. One: those who saw mages go poof and were very displeased. Two, anyone who feels somewhat similarly to me.
That's not a huge amount of work for a lot of pay off.
Thanks!
And I'm actually one of those people! (Who thinks it would have been great to at least keep the drov/elkros/nilaz guilds, 'main guild' mages I care less about.) But yeah, mostly I was just hoping to point out that I really don't think staff did what they did because of any trust issues or from a 'take it or leave it' POV. I think it was just well, people aren't going to like this no matter what. And different ways of announcing it may have arguably been worse, or at least more time consuming and more emotionally charged.
Quote from: Kryos on March 22, 2016, 04:11:57 AM
Pretty awesome post, Fathi.
My rebuttal will come in the form of observing some numbers from the polls put up. If this exact same change had been put into effect, with a bit of premeasuring from the pbase, it looks like a huge amount of the players who are really upset by the change itself (not the ouch, why? of this thread) would have been absolutely cool with it if in some capacity, regular mages continued to exist.
I'd be willing to bet some would be still be upset or compelled to passion by the changes, but you'd have appeased two portions of the crowd. One: those who saw mages go poof and were very displeased. Two, anyone who feels somewhat similarly to me.
That's not a huge amount of work for a lot of pay off.
We'll consider the polls for what they are: expressions of player opinion based on conjecture and feeling. When staff take valuable feedback on a change, it happens months down the line, when players can respond logically and with basis in experience. Then things can be adjusted as-needed.
Quote from: Kryos on March 21, 2016, 10:26:46 PM
I am also displeased that those who perceive this negatively are being lumped as 'over reacting' by you, Nergal. I think those are two very distinct cases.
That's not what I said. I was referring to taking a break or quitting the game being an overreaction to a change that has only had a few hours in the spotlight.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 21, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
Nobody complaining has addressed one of the major issues that would have arose if they did tell everyone beforehand: Storage, and countless people playing a certain type of character simply becuase it'll be the last time they can, instead of because it added to the game. I imagine a ton of those requests would be denied and the staff would have ended up pissing people off just as much, if not more.
Anyhow, Staff, being made up of players of the game, and having knowledge of what people like to play beyond the average player, really doesn't need to ask for input from the GDB if they're willing to amend and make changes to said decisions to smooth things out as much as they reasonably can afterwards.
That last bit is pretty key though.
I don't think that warning everyone in advance, that this specific change was coming, was necessary. I know I'm not complaining about that, at all. There were plenty of ways the staff could have gotten a general idea of player opinions on how things were, without hinting that they were planning on doing *this* to the guilds. In fact, they might have done something else, if they had asked the right questions in advance. Have an exit poll for every player who plays a mage character, once that character ceases to exist (stored, killed). A generic poll that doesn't hint at a potential future direction. What did you like about playing Amos? What didn't you like? Do you feel you were able to explore Amos's full existence as a human/dwarf/breed living in Zalanthas, with your choice of guild and subguild? Yes? Thanks for your time! No? Why not? Did this bother you? No? Thanks for your time! Yes? Do you have any suggestions for the staff on what might have made you feel like Amos was more rounded out as a sentient being in Zalanthas? No? Thanks for your time! Yes? Explain here.
If all the questions are answered "no" then it's a very short exit survey. The "yes" questions lead to only one single "essay-type" response request.
From that, the staff could get some idea of what players really want, because they're polling only players who actually play these roles.
Quote from: seidhr on March 22, 2016, 01:33:31 AM
With great trepidation I am going to make a brief comment on this thread.
We do look at player opinion as one factor when we're making changes to the game. But ultimately someone has to make the call to change something, and with a pretty sizable audience of interested parties (players) - we'd never be able to change anything if we waited for universal agreement (or even a super majority) on proposed changes - especially something of this scale.
I think there's been uh.. one, maybe two PCs rolled up under the new system thus far. I am pretty sure that they haven't affected the game world in any meaningful way yet. Literally all the discussion thus far is based exclusively upon conjecture.
Speaking personally, also as a player, I can feel empathy for the 'sense of loss' some people have with the pure elementalist guilds disappearing - but as they say when one door closes another opens. I definitely think that is true in this case.
What I see existing currently with the current changes:
A few doors closed.
A bunch of pigeonholes opened.
I have zero interest in those pigeonholes. I did, however, have great interest in some of those doors. Not even all of them. I feel that the staff has actually *eliminated* my ability to play a mage as a "full person" rather than enhanced that ability.
players tend to react negatively when options are taken away and positively when options are added.
Does the notion of "change" necessitate removal of options? Why not just add subguilds for sorcerers and keep a mainguild as an option? Nobody would be upset; some people will whine that they have too many choices but those would be minor complaints. The vast majority would say "cool, more choices is better" and the response would be positive. The same question could be asked of every change staff makes including this latest one: take something away and you have taken away someone's range of experience.
So in summary, leave options in and add new ones and everybody celebrates, a few people may complain about complexity but will generally still be pleased. Remove options some people like without hope of replacing them and some people will be upset, so much so that they won't celebrate the additions.
It should generally be a policy of staff that removal of options should be run by the playerbase before being implemented. If staff don't do this then you will indeed see players be disappointed. Running it by the playerbase could be done directly through asking us or indirectly through watching us make choices. See below for more.
Change != removal. It can mean additions without deletions. I definitely sympathise with players who feel this was a heavy handed move. Moreover if something was removed from a game without a similar replacement and it was something players had previously spent hundreds of game hours enjoying then I think stating they would like a break from the game is a reasonable reaction. We are talking about the complete removal of "mages" as described in the original announcement. If you enjoyed being a mage, roleplaying a character with a deep connection to magic, now you can't unless you were lucky enough to have one already. That is the largest change in Armageddon to date and if a player were to want to quit over it I would understand.
Armageddon is a different game now to be sure. I would much rather have seen both mainguild mages and subguilds available for a few years before such a removal were even considered. See how many PCs are rolled up of either category and then decide if the playerbase would be okay with it. Instead the decision was forced on us without seeing whether or not these new subguilds would be as popular or more popular than the existing choices.
Nevermind, this thread isn't really about the changes. Deleting post.
Quote from: Nergal on March 22, 2016, 06:15:44 AM
We'll consider the polls for what they are: expressions of player opinion based on conjecture and feeling. When staff take valuable feedback on a change, it happens months down the line, when players can respond logically and with basis in experience. Then things can be adjusted as-needed.
That's great to hear, though I agree with Harmless's post above, especially because it was the removal of something many players (or it seems that way) had enjoyed. Anyway, it should be fun to see how these changes play out.
I haven't really read this thread all the way through, but my thoughts / reaction to the premise is this:
We're schmucks posting on the GDB. Staff arose from the ranks of the GDB posting schmucks. Any schmuck who's ever spent days crafting an argument for a new concept only to have it receive a page and a half of indifference can tell you that, no matter how smart a schmuck thinks he is, sometimes his ideas stink. I'm not saying that this change stinks - so far my feelings on it are neutral - but I think that those schmucks over there could have at least run something this monumental by us schmucks over here before pushing it to PROD. We may not have all agreed on it (that would take a fuckin' miracle on the best of days), but it would've been nice to test the temperature before plunging in.
Sure, there might have been an uptick in magickal play, but if the question was phrased as "hey, here's what we're thinking guys" instead of "here's what we're working on right now and planning to implement on MM/dd/yyyy" then I doubt you would've seen a gamebreaking upswing in people apping mages.
According to the poll, for those saying a majority of players are against this change, numerically, is untrue. Most players feel neutral or better about the changes. I think that's a good way to be.
So... give something a go before you shit all over it, guys. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: boog on March 22, 2016, 08:57:18 AM
According to the poll, for those saying a majority of players are against this change, numerically, is untrue. Most players feel neutral or better about the changes. I think that's a good way to be.
So... give something a go before you shit all over it, guys. That's all I'm saying.
Boog, who here is "shitting all over" something? we're reacting, and the majority of us who are reacting with disfavor are doing so with as much politeness and congeniality as possible.
If I have a negative response towards something, I am going to be honest about that. I am also open-minded and admit that I want to give this a try, yes. So in essence I am planning on doing what you're saying, but I am also being told that many options have been removed from the game. So I am reacting to that. I think the community as a whole is also doing the same.
Please try and see our side of things. To use your own language, don't "shit all over our responses to something," this is after all a discussion board and we are having a discussion. Okay?
I wasn't indicating you. There have been a number of really aggressive posts! I'm just saying that we should all take a deep breath and give it a go. If the response is terribly negative, and people stop playing by the droves, I'm sure staff will try to come up with a resolution.
But as it stands now, people seem okay with the idea. I guess those who complain are usually the loudest, though. And on an Internet forum, they're usually the... very loudest and meanest. The tone has lightened some from last night, but it's still just insane to me how some people were mistreating one another.
Blah, I'm going away now.
*hug*
I'm going to say it...
Look, I've been as salty at staff as any player here. But at some point you have to realize that it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Taking grand stands about betrayals of trust is only going to come off as slightly ridiculous at best, no matter how understandable your feelings are.
I have super mixed feelings, but I can see the potential for this. I have faith that staff has a grand plan in all this, whether or not I personally agree with it at the moment.
My advice is to chill out, embrace the chaos, and let the hate darkside apathy flow through you.
*yes. embrace chaos...
I fell in love with Kryos recently. He's a hero in the GDB sense of the word as well as, I suspect, the real world sense. Let him speak his reasonably concerned mind! Tribe mentality!
Lost trust? No. To tell you the truth, I've always regarded the staff as overlords that give and take on a whim without my hearsay. Do I like to believe that the staff will work with us to make this game the best ever? Pfft. Duh. And I'm not saying the change is good or bad, because I'm going to enjoy the game anyway. I am going to say that I do think that taking away options breaks hearts, man. Dreams are crushed. Especially without consent or any warning at all. ... but like I said. I've always considered staff to be gods looming over us.
I'm also a really "go with the flow" kind of guy. Unless something threatens my flow directly, (which in a sense, it has) I won't worry about it.
Hm. I guess I am kind of upset that I won't be able to roleplay being completely connected to an element. I really hope this isn't the case.
I realize, after seeing something like this being "futile" how serious this actually is. Everyone... this is a game. Created and crafted /for/ us and not by us. We can come up with ideas and talk about positive change, but ultimately the people in charge are the people in charge. That isn't a bad thing. Heck... I'm big headed enough to say that they've even listened to my pleas, what with the reassuring announcement to the player base after I suggested it in a thread and some other stuff. I'll even say that other people's words were heard too.
That is the truth. The people who are in charge /do/ listen. They do take our thoughts and feelings into consideration. They do love us, man. <3
They have literally been making updates regularly without our consent and for the most part has had no back talk. Because most of them were additions to the game. Now that they've taken something away it is reasonable to wonder why and ask why. It is reasonable for people to make threads like this. (again, I commend you, Kryos).
But. It is clear that people see another solution and I'm certain, now, more than yesterday that the IMMs are lookin' out for us. Did I lose trust, no. I tell ya, ever since all these changes started happening I've noticed my trust in them sky-rocket. Like I said, it's like they actually care!
xD And I may not of gained trust from this, because "they're" still the hand that feeds.
But I got faith, man.
Quote from: Nergal on March 21, 2016, 10:20:40 PM
Staff are not obligated to check and make sure that players unanimously like every change we're planning before we work it into the game, and it's difficult to take feedback on this particular change seriously when literally only one player has tried the change so far and other players are twisting staff commentary to mean something else.
If you feel that a change to the game is driving you to take a break, or quit, then do it.
If you stop yourself and consider that that might be an over-reaction before you try out the change, then more power to you.
Ultimately, this is a game and we hope the players have fun playing it. As staff, we're going to continue to work on it and modernize it. When it's appropriate to ask players for suggestions before a change, we will (and have in the past for myriad other things).
I thought I'd keep my mouth shut since this is essentially none of my business. I was okay with the change since it absolutely and positively didn't impact me in the least, but when I saw this response from you it more or less validated the OP's complaint at its core (without all the overreaction and drama included).
In over 20 years of playing, coding, and serving as staff on muds I can tell you that big game changes without consultation of the playerbase or even lovingly and kindly soliciting their input post-release will drive away players. That's all you had to do. Politely say, "Hey, nothing is permanent. Try this out for awhile and give us some feedback on how it's working." Instead you took a hard line and your response reads largely as "hit the road if you don't like it".
I can point to about four other really great muds I've played out there that had stellar world-building, great code, and an awesome history ... but now have about 4 players logged on at their peak times. Staff may be all volunteers, but so are players.
I don't want anyone to quit. However, I want people who say they are going to quit over a change to stop using that as a threat against staff in an attempt to get us to change the game to their liking, because 1) it doesn't work, 2) it's clearly an overreaction and 3) because players almost never follow through with such a threat. I was specifically addressing a sentiment that was starting to become a theme of the thread and certainly not saying "hit the road if you don't like it".
Quote from: Miradus on March 22, 2016, 11:03:48 AM
Politely say, "Hey, nothing is permanent. Try this out for awhile and give us some feedback on how it's working." ....
I'm just going to point out that this has been said several times now. I know I'd get tired of saying the same thing over and over.
Quote from: valeria on March 22, 2016, 11:22:06 AM
Quote from: Miradus on March 22, 2016, 11:03:48 AM
Politely say, "Hey, nothing is permanent. Try this out for awhile and give us some feedback on how it's working." ....
I'm just going to point out that this has been said several times now. I know I'd get tired of saying the same thing over and over.
Good then! I didn't read all the responses in the thread and nor do I want to. I just wanted to weigh in on a specific thing I saw, which Nergal has largely addressed in his response.
Let us compare this recent change to the changes to subguilds which started with Adhira's poll asking us which two subguilds were the least useful or fun. Within a few months they released changes to subguilds that basically incorporated player feedback. I think people received those changes very positively. Scavenger was removed but there were definitely no "threats" to quit.
Now we have the complete opposite approach to this no less than a few months after. We were told guilds would get a revamp but there was no mention of these kinds of changes.
Is this staff's game to change and code as they wish? Definitely. Is there some merit to the poll Adhira started before subguilds were changed? Definitely. The point is there are a lot of ways to run a ship. There is clearly not an explicit rule saying staff must or mustn't do things in a way players like. But players also have a say and they can and do make a big difference in the experience of all players.
When threads like these are started it is an attempt to show not just that we are happy or unhappy with the decisions staff make but also that we really, really care about those decisions. Sometimes there is some heated emotion included and that is OK. We love the game even if we don't love everything that happens to its design. In the end I still can't find a roleplaying community with the same depth and dedication so that will keep me here at least when I have time to play.
Posted in the wrong thread.
Nobody complaining has managed to take into account the reason staff said they didn't warn people ahead of time...
Nobody has even tried. Right now staff has already put more effort into considering the decision, and what other problems might arise from telling everyone before-hand, than anyone who's complained about it. Because ya'll are hand-waving away a glaring flaw in your idea that everyone should be notified before-hand; That would piss off just as many people who don't like the idea, AND make the games balance of magick vs mundane incredibly in favor of magick while everyone scrambled to play a guild that won't be around anymore.
I, for one, prefer mundanes. I am afraid of the changes allowing nearly ANYONE to be a magicker, OOCly, but I can totally get behind that fact that... well.. now thats REALLY true. Finding out your boss is a fucking death wizard has some profound implications.
However, where my trust is being lost is in some of the vocal GDB base. I read all three pages, and most of it is arguments between a few key vocal people who didn't like ANOTHER post on these forums, or thinks people don't get to voice their opinions and must be shut down. For those of you who have expressed your opinions, defended them, and left it at that? I would fucking love to play alongside you any day. Some of you others... are seriously just throwing shade and making an air of grievances to be more than it is.
So far as staff? While a headsup would have been nice, and some of the options they just ripped from me were ones I hoped to one day special app for... I can't even imagine the hemorrhage of players we'd see just from the IDEA that this is what was going to happen. Debates would start, people would be doing what they're doing now, only the changes wouldn't even exist. It sucks. It hurts that they did it. I was really hoping to have that 'all-chocolate chip cookie' one day, because I heard from people that ate it before that it was amazing. The change exists, now. I see a number of problems with it. Staff doesn't particularly care if I play or not, so I think I'm just going to keep playing. I just pegged the overarching idea of 'staff' down one, in my mind, but my system of Karma doesn't matter, its theirs.
Speaking to staff in a recent request, I wrote something like "well it is your game and you can do as you like". The response I received was "It is -our- game" meaning players, staff (who are also players), builders etc.
This thread started talking about stakeholders. I run an NGO and dealing with various stakeholders is one of my principal duties. Any good program needs both stakeholder consultation and stakeholder accountability.
However, if I tried to run my NGO as a democracy...chaos would ensue, the donors would never fund us again and I would accomplish nothing. Consultation does not equal majority rule.
Harmless had a wonderful post (as usual) about Adhiras poll. I think personally, that is the way to go for large scale changes. It really did make me feel like I had some ownership in the game and in the process of change. It made me feel valued. However it was not a democratic process. It was a consultation, and it worked.
Kyros, while there was no poll for these changes, I would not say they were taken with no stakeholder consultation. I think decisions were most likely taken after many years of watching the game being played, playing the game and listening to players through requests and on the GDB. It was just not a centralized thing, like Adhras poll.
Why did they do it this way? They have explained. Is the reason acceptable? I don't know. Do I feel sad? Yes, however, I have not yet tried the new system. I do think there was consultation, just not in the way many would have liked to see it done. Will there be review? I believe so and that makes me relax a little.
I need to give the benefit of the doubt to staff here, and trust that they are indeed trying to make the game more FUN, for all the stakeholder groups, even Boog.
Cheers
I admit to giving up partway through the argument about dictatorships on page two (not meant as a flame, just too tired to read it all tonight) and not being fully informed on everything posted.
I was considering creating a thread asking staff how they decided where they were going to focus their energies. How are the decisions made on which changes will be made, when and how? And how much player consultation takes place in the process?
But I changed my mind. Here's why. In looking at the simplest of threads on the GDB, one on the most innocuous, gentle, bland and downright boring topics of conversation that a person could think of, by the time we get to the second page (third on a slow day), the players are upset and arguing about every tiny detail. We, as a group, myself included, would never be able to reach a consensus on how to correctly pronounce jallal (and don't derail on this topic), much less something as significant as how magick is portrayed and played in the world.
And, quite frankly, I'm kind of glad that we're not involved. The discussions would never, ever, ever end and we'd still be playing with dice, on a tabletop, most likely stuck in the opening scene of the campaign because the cleric and the rogue are arguing about the correct saving throw for falling out of a chair and avoiding the badger of doomy doom on the way down. (yes, I would have participated in this argument for hours)
I have been upset about a number of the changes that have taken place in the last several years. I came to realize that most of them made the game world a better place. The ones I don't feel this way about, I either avoid where possible or accept as one of the conditions for playing the game.
I do, however, trust that staff are a collection of people much more knowledgeable about the game, the world and the history than I. I also trust that they're trying to make positive changes to improve the game experience, at least as they see fit. Maybe not the exact same changes I'd make, but well thought out and developed by the group.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2016, 03:47:20 PM
Nobody complaining has managed to take into account the reason staff said they didn't warn people ahead of time...
Nobody has even tried. Right now staff has already put more effort into considering the decision, and what other problems might arise from telling everyone before-hand, than anyone who's complained about it. Because ya'll are hand-waving away a glaring flaw in your idea that everyone should be notified before-hand; That would piss off just as many people who don't like the idea, AND make the games balance of magick vs mundane incredibly in favor of magick while everyone scrambled to play a guild that won't be around anymore.
In one of my earlier posts I suggested that they could have indirectly seen what players would have favored more, the subguilds vs the mainguilds, by implementing both at once and seeing what players chose over time. If players tended to favor the subguilds with both options available for some time then they would have had their answer. They needn't necessarily have ever told the players they were planning on removing the Magick mainguilds in this case.
Otherwise I agree with you. An advance warning would have thrown game balance. Still, there is an alternate way to go about this besides what was chosen.
Quote from: Harmless on March 22, 2016, 10:24:40 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2016, 03:47:20 PM
Nobody complaining has managed to take into account the reason staff said they didn't warn people ahead of time...
Nobody has even tried. Right now staff has already put more effort into considering the decision, and what other problems might arise from telling everyone before-hand, than anyone who's complained about it. Because ya'll are hand-waving away a glaring flaw in your idea that everyone should be notified before-hand; That would piss off just as many people who don't like the idea, AND make the games balance of magick vs mundane incredibly in favor of magick while everyone scrambled to play a guild that won't be around anymore.
In one of my earlier posts I suggested that they could have indirectly seen what players would have favored more, the subguilds vs the mainguilds, by implementing both at once and seeing what players chose over time. If players tended to favor the subguilds with both options available for some time then they would have had their answer. They needn't necessarily have ever told the players they were planning on removing the Magick mainguilds in this case.
Otherwise I agree with you. An advance warning would have thrown game balance. Still, there is an alternate way to go about this besides what was chosen.
I've tried to come up with a better implementation plan and find more flaws than benefits. What would you suggest as the alternative way to go about this?
What I just posted. Implement the subguilds, keep the mainguilds, eventually get numbers for what people favor among the subguilds and do tweaks to balance them, rinse, repeat. All the while keep mainguild Magickers around as the "classic" option. Eventually have subguilds options people like more and phase out the mainguilds at that point when they won't be as missed. It could have been done, no? What is wrong with this approach?
Sorry I missed that before. That is a great example of a better way things could have been done.
Edit: Though I should add, would add a lot of extra work for staff.
I suppose I'll repeat ad nauseam: I actually love the subguild addition, hate the removal of 50% of the games guilds. But its not about liking or disliking facets or the whole of the change. Its that we can't do anything about it and don't get told. That's the point of the thread. And there's no time required to digest that.
Edit to add in: There's a discussion of these changes thread, for that type of post. (and typo)
Nergal, I'm going to say I'm baffled by your position. Staff decides to yet again surprise the player base with a massive, sweeping change and then says our opinions on it are moot due to being reflexive. As I've said before, I have a pretty high opinion of a lot of staff members I've played under and communicated with, including you. It is because of this high opinion I refuse to believe that you do not understand psychology enough to grasp that letting an idea or change wither away and fade from importance in the mind of human beings results in far less critical evaluation of it. Or that peer review is one of the most brutally effective methods of beating a raw idea into a honed one.
Further, my reaction is far from reflexive or knee jerk, because I've had what, years now of this same behavior to make up my mind? This seems a very round about way of supporting my statement that the methodology is flawed. Allow me to expound and open to the general audience.
This is not the first time this has happened, as in, "Surprise: Hlum nobles are closed, Surprise: Tuluki culture has been utterly revamped, Surprise: Red Fangs are Closed, Surprise: Tuluk's closed, Surprise: Sorcerers are removed and now just subguilds with a literal fraction of the ability, Surprise: Mages are gone and now sub guilds with a literal fraction of the power, but can be combined with main guilds now. P.S. Several of them are just flat gone." That's a lot of Surprise! I would say everyone's plenty familiar with surprise by now. And I do not even begin to grasp the why of a few of these changes, while acknowledging the desired result or needs of others. Previously in the thread, for instance, I pointed out how sorcerers were responsible for two situations of world shaping politics, role playing intensity, and player engagement. Their reward for functioning well in their capacity was to be removed. That mystified me. Closing Tuluk is a different example. I, for one, enjoyed the location. But I can in good faith say I see why it was closed. But there's a more important problem with all this.
I have not seen any indications of player input having any impact on these decisions, nor them being changed down the road. Is there any sort of goal oriented and plot driving behaviors commensurate to replace Hlum nobility being removed? Nope. Are there Red Fangs, or some other equivalent competent player driven antagonistic force in the world? Hm, nope. I could go on with every single large change but one. Never did I see staff asking for any input about any of this, only player driven movements to express their opinions with placating responses, or responses that avoided the thrust of the topic, or no response at all.
There is one exception to this that could be noted: sorcerer subguilds got some more spells. But, well, how many unique players have played a sorcerer since then? As in, not the same person doing subguild sorcerers a few times, but unique player accounts. Did they all get harvested input some how? So, take that figure and divide it by a number greater than 300, to represent the entire player base. That's the percent of the player base who had no input on that, after the fact let alone before. Guessing there's been maybe 15 unique sorcerer players, not staff to that 300, we see 95% exclusion. I am purposefully excluding staff's player accounts because their voice is already heard, as per the jist of this all. Understanding that there is a margin of error for both sides, I suspect the ratio is about right due to the scarcity of the role. As in, it is the most scare role of all.
Now, some swath of the unrepresented wanted to be a sorcerer, some swath of them likely wanted sorcerers to go away, some swath will be indifferent, and so on. Regardless of their stance, they had no input. Like, indifferent, or hate the changes its irrelevant, because just as easily down the road you could find the behavior turned on its head in terms of your enjoyment, and you'll have just as little voice.
Simply put, some one show me in some capacity players have agency and have in fact, changed the outcome and how I can participate in that and I'll take my painted sign and go home. If I got to offer my voice and was in the minority every time I'd be infinitely more pleased with the state of affairs, while human nature and many examples dictate so too would most others. Otherwise, this really is put up with it or quit, as there are no other outlets I can see.
P.S.
This is challenging, I admit that hands down. Given the situation, however, it has to be. This is not a call to stop changing things, or trying to make the game better. Everyone who contributes to that process is awesome for doing so in my opinion.
edit: double negative, Kryos. Double negative.
Back in the day, I argued with staff a lot about the tdesc feature. It literally took years, and admittedly some staff turnover, but now we have tdescs. Hairdressers rejoice!
Beloved clans have been closed, then re-opened (then closed again, then re-opened again).
Lost in all this recent 'gicker hubbub was this:
Quote-Draw can now be used with the syntax, "draw X es"
A player suggestion directly and immediately from the GDB.
If I didn't believe that staff value player opinions, I wouldn't bother giving mine.
If staff didn't value player opinions, they wouldn't bother arguing with us.
Let's try our best remember that at the very least, both sides are coming from a place of love.
Now back to our regularly scheduled feud, already in progress.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 23, 2016, 05:58:41 AM
Back in the day, I argued with staff a lot about the tdesc feature. It literally took years, and admittedly some staff turnover, but now we have tdescs. Hairdressers rejoice!
Beloved clans have been closed, then re-opened (then closed again, then re-opened again).
Lost in all this recent 'gicker hubbub was this:
Quote-Draw can now be used with the syntax, "draw X es"
A player suggestion directly and immediately from the GDB.
If I didn't believe that staff value player opinions, I wouldn't bother giving mine.
If staff didn't value player opinions, they wouldn't bother arguing with us.
Let's try our best remember that at the very least, both sides are coming from a place of love.
Now back to our regularly scheduled feud, already in progress.
I think, in fairness, that this can't be compared to Kryos' examples of things like closing Tuluk and quartering sorcerers. He pointed out major, gamechanging decisions happening without any kind of warning or debate, to which something like 'draw es' doesn't quite compare.
Kryos, it is extremely disappointing to see players repeatedly read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying. In another thread three posters took me saying that magicker skill trees were lacking to mean that players were mishandling magicker guilds. I like to think I am pretty clear when I write posts here, so I'm starting to wonder if the consistent misinterpretation is a deliberate attempt at drawing me into an argument I'm not trying to have, for a side I don't even support.
I have consistently made a distinction between player observations (which I value the most, but are based on trial, and generally come a few months after a change), player feelings (which I appreciate, and have said in other threads that I appreciate), player conjecture and extrapolation (which is not based on trial and has less value), and attempts by players to use their status as a player, and specifically the threat of them quitting, to force change or a reversal of a change (which I find absurd).
Quote from: Warsong on March 23, 2016, 06:09:06 AM
I think, in fairness, that this can't be compared to Kryos' examples of things like closing Tuluk and quartering sorcerers. He pointed out major, gamechanging decisions happening without any kind of warning or debate, to which something like 'draw es' doesn't quite compare.
Well, technically we did have both warning and debate about those. Just not "consultation".
There's reasons why prior consultation might not really be that much better for anyone, but other posts have covered that.
Besides, basically no games are ever run/developed that way.
BUT, while it may not make sense to consult players before making decisions, it's certainly not impossible to reverse/adjust them after trial and feedback.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 22, 2016, 10:48:59 PM
Sorry I missed that before. That is a great example of a better way things could have been done.
Edit: Though I should add, would add a lot of extra work for staff.
In the sense that the subguilds were probably going to get tweaks and revisions anyway, I don't think it would have taken any more effort at all to just keep the original mainguilds alongside them.
I said it before, Kyros, you obviously a smart dude and have a head on your shoulders. However, what nergal is saying is true, you're throwing out wild guesses on things you don't know. The number of newly minted sorcerers after the change, unique accounts and etc.
Why is this, after two or three days still such a huge powderkeg? Staff has told you and others over and over their reasoning, which they didn't need to, but did to give you a feeling of clarity I'm sure. There is about three to four people who are doing the equivalent of, "Ok that does make sense BUT..." Over and over.
I'm not saying you can't be upset, I'm. It saying you could t have this huge discourse through a private request with staff where after this amount of time I feel it belongs, not to mention we are talking about spells and such which has never been posted before, at least on this forum.
I'm way less worried about players leaving than staff going "Well fuck that guild revamp if this is the response we get from changing magickers!"
Just because the game hasn't had any major changes in 20 plus years, doesn't mean it shouldn't or won't. We need to adapt to challenge and change.
I have definitely lost some trust over staff. I am quite disappointed by this action and will be taking one of my (extremely frequent) breaks from the game. I can see this as nothing but a giant mistake and I'm afraid the Armageddon I grew up with won't be around in a few years time.
But that isn't all doom and gloom. The game has always evolved. Back when the game was going to launch it had druids, warlocks, shadowdancers and a dawnmagus (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/rec.games.mud/Gt49PUahHpo/kqwZEd5zmnYJ). The game clearly doesn't have those now. I personally think it's better for it. Unfortunately this is only the latest step in the things the game had when I first started. We had kanks, halflings, templars who inspired fear and would make you bow, players who felt like they were movers and shakers. Shortly before I started the T'zai Byn were kicked out of Allanak and forced to operate out of Red Storm for a while. We had flashpowder. None of this feels possible anymore. The clans aren't coming and going every few years. They've remained the same (or have been taken out without anything to replace it). The T'zai Byn is now so engrained it will never be removed. Players no longer have the option to succeed or fail on any scale beyond their own personal lives because everything is too powerful to ever face any significant risk to it's survival. Unless of course staff decide to remove it at which point it feels like there is nothing the players can do to save it.
Some of those early days were definitely viewed through the eyes of a newbie, something none of us can ever get back. Some if it was a game that was distinctly different. Some of the things from back in those days weren't great. Others shouldn't have been removed but I can understand the motives at the time and I do not fault staff for failing to rollback those changes. But when I read the rules (http://"http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?rules") and saw things like
QuoteDespite all of this, there are virtually no limits to what can happen,
barring the ludicrous. If your character sets up a mercenary company,
he/she may one day lead an army of loyal soldiers on an assault of one
of the great city-states. As a magicker your character may one day become
a fabled elemental being. Burglars may reach levels of affluence beyond
imagination, and merchants may likewise become so rich as to own their
own merchant house and dominate the world's economy. The limits are
truly whatever you can imagine occurring.
I got a vision of a world where anything was possible. Now we have a game where what is possible is codified (http://"http://armageddon.org/help/view/Player-Created%20Clans"). I no longer trust that what I value in this game is also valued by staff. Because the fact enough staff members were okay with this change to allow it to happen tells me they have a very different idea of what this game should and should not have. That rule about laying seige to a city and the possibilities being limitless? No longer part of the official rules as far as I can see. Which really says everything right there.
So I'll be off, just as all those people ragequit the game when the Drow city was removed or the Dawnmagus was retired. I truly hope those that stick around really enjoy the game. Because it is for you that this game is heading in the current direction. If you do feel strongly about this topic then I implore you to raise your voice, not just on these forums but in the request tool as well. I would love to stay and fight for the game that I first started playing, but with such a monumental change made without any player consultation or any indication that staff are receptive to rolling back this change, I no longer trust I have the ability to do anything to enact positive change as a player.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 21, 2016, 09:42:25 PMTheir explanation makes perfect sense to me. Everyone would be storing their characters to play the full magickers if they were told beforehand. It would definitely have dragged the quality of the game down.
If this is the official reasoning then it sounds like staff have lost a lot of trust in the players as well.
Quote from: Nergal on March 23, 2016, 06:13:52 AM
Kryos, it is extremely disappointing to see players repeatedly read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying. In another thread three posters took me saying that magicker skill trees were lacking to mean that players were mishandling magicker guilds. I like to think I am pretty clear when I write posts here, so I'm starting to wonder if the consistent misinterpretation is a deliberate attempt at drawing me into an argument I'm not trying to have, for a side I don't even support.
I have consistently made a distinction between player observations (which I value the most, but are based on trial, and generally come a few months after a change), player feelings (which I appreciate, and have said in other threads that I appreciate), player conjecture and extrapolation (which is not based on trial and has less value), and attempts by players to use their status as a player, and specifically the threat of them quitting, to force change or a reversal of a change (which I find absurd).
I'm one of the people who has mentioned the possibility of leaving Armageddon, and I want to say - I'm not threatening to do anything, or hold any kind of status over anyone's head, or extort or whatever else. Armageddon is a game I've enjoyed for a very very long time. I enjoyed it as much as I did, because of the magick system. When you make this significant change to the system that made me love the game so much, you change my enjoyment of the game. If I don't enjoy it anymore, I'm not going to spend time doing it. I'd be very sad to leave it, IF I were to leave it.
I also know that you're not done with the changes yet. I might not be enjoying it right this minute - and I know I have zero interest in playing a magick subguild, as things are right this minute. But hey you might have a different kind of change coming up in the next few weeks that blows everything I DID enjoy about the game to smithereens with a whole new exciting level of "fun-factor." I'm not optimistic. I'm also not pessimistic. I'm dissatisfied with the current situation. And neutral about the future because I don't know what it holds.
But I am stating - if the future holds more dissatisfaction than fun, there won't be any reason to keep playing. One should expect nothing less from anyone who is active in any hobby, ever.
I have no problem with not being informed in advance of these changes. I also don't agree that the playerbase as a whole should be consulted with on things that they might not even know anything about. So I disagree with the trust issue, as it applies to this thread. I would have liked the AFFECTED people to be queried in advance, and I think that would've gone a LONG way in preventing the need for damage-control.
John, is it possible that that blurb was taken out of the list of rules because it's not a rule? Is it possible that the game still operates on that philosophy provided that players actually reach for it? A lot of the time I see players limiting themselves, and as a staff member I try to push them toward trying something big.
Good luck on your break, in any case. Good luck to anyone else who decides that this change is the breaking point and decide to take a break or quit completely. All I have to say is that if we stopped changing the game out of fear of players leaving then the game would never change. We change the game with the hope that players will try it and have fun. We can't do anything about players who decide to throw their hands up at one point. Either staff do their job as staff, and contribute to the game, possibly risking players departing over the changes - or we do nothing and risk players leaving out of frustration over stagnation.
Quote from: Nergal on March 23, 2016, 06:13:52 AM
Kryos, it is extremely disappointing to see players repeatedly read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying. In another thread three posters took me saying that magicker skill trees were lacking to mean that players were mishandling magicker guilds. I like to think I am pretty clear when I write posts here, so I'm starting to wonder if the consistent misinterpretation is a deliberate attempt at drawing me into an argument I'm not trying to have, for a side I don't even support.
I have consistently made a distinction between player observations (which I value the most, but are based on trial, and generally come a few months after a change), player feelings (which I appreciate, and have said in other threads that I appreciate), player conjecture and extrapolation (which is not based on trial and has less value), and attempts by players to use their status as a player, and specifically the threat of them quitting, to force change or a reversal of a change (which I find absurd).
Quote from: John on March 23, 2016, 08:16:01 AM
I got a vision of a world where anything was possible. Now we have a game where what is possible is codified (http://"http://armageddon.org/help/view/Player-Created%20Clans").
I recently got told I couldn't do something IG because then everyone else would want to do it. Got told my idea "was not going to happen" because it might set a precedent for others to do the same.
WTF?
Yeah, I doubt they're going to let you build a merc company to rival the Byn. I doubt there going to let.you raise an army and try to sack 'Nak.
Quote from: Nergal on March 23, 2016, 08:32:46 AM
John, is it possible that that blurb was taken out of the list of rules because it's not a rule? Is it possible that the game still operates on that philosophy provided that players actually reach for it?
Is it possible? Sure. But when I started someone successfully special apped for a werekank creature (or something like that). Today we have categorical.y been told that players will not be permitted to spe ial app for Drovians, Elkrosians and Nilazi despite the fact those things are still virtually in the game. There is no denying that things have changed.
And not all change is bad. But some changes are additive, others are reductive. The inclusion of magickal subguilds for thise who don't want the limitations that come with a full magicker class would have been a great addition to the game. But it wasn't an additive change. It came at the expense of something else. And with those elements gone I feel Armageddon has lost some of what helped make it unique and set it apart.
So a break is a healthy response. It gives time for emotions to cool down and for things to play out. I've frequently taken breaks, but everytime I did I trusted that when I came back I would always find a welckming home. I don't trust this will be true this time tnough. Although I do hope that when I do come back Armageddon is better then ever. It might not be something I can enjoy, but that doesn't make it bad.
John.
John plz.
If you stay, I will be your friend.
I can't give you karma, or magical powers, but I can be your friend.
I can be your friend Joooohn.
Together we can play the game.
We can roleplay elves forever....
Just please John...don't go away...
(The tune of Hero by Enrique Iglesias.)
??? ??? ???
Jesus.
Thanks for removing Drovians. Good change overall imo. I'm looking forward to trying out these subguilds. It'll be fun.
Wow...
To staff: (If you bother to read this post) Some of the playerbase are feeling insecure, upset and perhaps even a bit betrayed. If the feelings are justified or not..not my call. Yet, the feelings are there.
So reassure them. Let them know that the process will be in review, let them know that if -down the road a bit- enough people are not liking the changes that you can adjust, or even go back. Let them know their voices will be heard. If you have already done this in the myriad of other threads about this issue, then centralize all those responses in one staff announcement post. It will cost you very little to do that and it would perhaps calm things down.
To the players who are talking about leaving: (If you even bother to read this post) Don't be silly. Staff have done something to try and make the game you love even better. At least give it a try before you say it is rubbish. Then provide some positive feedback to staff about the changes, and make your requests. If after all that you are still dischuffed, then leave if you must.
Quote from: John on March 23, 2016, 09:48:19 AM
So a break is a healthy response. It gives time for emotions to cool down and for things to play out. I've frequently taken breaks, but everytime I did I trusted that when I came back I would always find a welckming home. I don't trust this will be true this time tnough. Although I do hope that when I do come back Armageddon is better then ever. It might not be something I can enjoy, but that doesn't make it bad.
That is true. I took a peek at your logins and it seems you've been on a break for about a month or so, and I hope you eventually feel refreshed enough to come back. I like to think that this game has a steady stream of veterans who come and go, and they certainly are welcome to come and go as they please.
Quote from: Norcal on March 23, 2016, 11:15:40 AM
Wow...
To staff: (If you bother to read this post) Some of the playerbase are feeling insecure, upset and perhaps even a bit betrayed. If the feelings are justified or not..not my call. Yet, the feelings are there.
So reassure them. Let them know that the process will be in review, let them know that if -down the road a bit- enough people are not liking the changes that you can adjust, or even go back. Let them know their voices will be heard. If you have already done this in the myriad of other threads about this issue, then centralize all those responses in one staff announcement post. It will cost you very little to do that and it would perhaps calm things down.
We've definitely said this in multiple threads. The implication in the original announcement that this was the "first phase" of guild renovation means we're already considering additional changes, improvements, fixes and so on.
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/ef63de9cb944f13b0d90990d63a166f1/tumblr_ml7qhotGNh1qha6vko1_500.jpg)
** this posted meme is intended to be tongue-in-cheek about kneejerk player reactions, and is not meant to be directly insulting or inflamatory to anyone, anything, or anyone or anything's pets, cars, or sexual toys. Please do not report me and get me banned again.
***** I love the changes.
Quote from: Nergal on March 23, 2016, 01:03:30 PM
Quote from: Norcal on March 23, 2016, 11:15:40 AM
Wow...
To staff: (If you bother to read this post) Some of the playerbase are feeling insecure, upset and perhaps even a bit betrayed. If the feelings are justified or not..not my call. Yet, the feelings are there.
So reassure them. Let them know that the process will be in review, let them know that if -down the road a bit- enough people are not liking the changes that you can adjust, or even go back. Let them know their voices will be heard. If you have already done this in the myriad of other threads about this issue, then centralize all those responses in one staff announcement post. It will cost you very little to do that and it would perhaps calm things down.
We've definitely said this in multiple threads. The implication in the original announcement that this was the "first phase" of guild renovation means we're already considering additional changes, improvements, fixes and so on.
Wonderful. Good enough for me.
Quote from: Malifaxis on March 23, 2016, 01:58:46 PM
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/ef63de9cb944f13b0d90990d63a166f1/tumblr_ml7qhotGNh1qha6vko1_500.jpg)
** this posted meme is intended to be tongue-in-cheek about kneejerk player reactions, and is not meant to be directly insulting or inflamatory to anyone, anything, or anyone or anything's pets, cars, or sexual toys. Please do not report me and get me banned again.
***** I love the changes.
You turn me on.
Malifaxis and WarriorPoet, shame on you. Either for being illiterate or unwilling to participate in an meaningful manner: either way its quite disappointing and frankly embarrassing for you. With your tenure as community members you should be exemplars, not pseudo junior high school kids.
Nergal, no shame on you at all. Thanks for keeping it top notch. I too find false ultimatums to be disappointing, or grandstanding for attention if I had to speculate. My intention and purpose here is neither. And I have no desire or intention on considering that in regards to other posters.
I have quite the aversion to confrontation, and had to beat that out of myself for years in order to be able to effectively push myself to elevate my communication abilities. I don't use chicanery as it seems some others are apt to employ. I don't come a discussion sideways(though I catch myself being goaded now and again), I try to tackle things head on. And what I'm coming head on at is: I don't see any means of players making a reasonable, outward facing, and informed contributions towards changes being made. And many of the ideas and notions I've put forth as have others here remain unanswered or unaddressed.
As for getting vague numbers, there's sources that allow one to make informed, educated guesses about ratios and the like. Unique login/month and New Account/month compiled over 3 years time as well as 3rd party tracking behaviors that were in place. Not mine, I'll note, I could make such tools but I find that kind of invasive behavior repugnant. Add to that a long time with my nose in data, and I'm actually quite confident in my educated guesses even if they rarely do flop. Moving on.
Reading something like John's post leaves me with a sense of empathy. Things like this are like a sucker punch in the RP gut. It saps the motivation and ability right out of you, at least to me, it can.
Over in another thread that's tangent, but related to this, talk of the 20, 10 and so on year vet status of senior administration and so on is mentioned so I'll try laying this out in light of that, since I could be called a 20 year vet of mud games(and table top, mmo, console, computer, mobas, and so on). Here we go, concise as I can try to make it.
If the system by which game changes are made in relation to players has been stagnant for over a decade, isn't it time it too had a valuation and refactoring? And in relation to its players, Arm does seem to be using the same systems that 90's muds/games employed, and I'd know because I was there. I played muds, staffed muds, and was in the grey area in between on small and large scale, pay or free to play alike.
It's been days man... Most of the villagers have since dropped their pitchforks and proceeded to go home, grumbling, but done.
It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're just regurgitating old statements and debates for the simple point of keeping the issue going. Yes, third party data tools, yes the math doesn't support it, yes we understand that as a social or business experiment that the staffs choice to do shit without having a PC consultation isn't something we could call the most updated or even perhaps proper way to go about it.
However, they stated the reason, due to not being able to get a consensus from players and move forward in a timely manner, which I 100 percent agree with. Because if we hypothetically were given a thread about this move, it would just be people who love it and people who hate it going back and forth and nothing would be done while we sit here bickering, it's better to just pull off the bandaid fast and deal with the momentary pain.
But in my analogy, you are not having momentary pain, you are continuing to holler days after everyone else has moved on and forgotten the pain of that bandaid. Why?
In closing, we hear you, you are free to disagree till the end of days if you wish. But all I ask is what you think you're going to accomplish by telling them over and over they are wrong? They aren't going to reevaluate their whole decision based on you data, you're third party tools or you heartfelt remorse of losing full elementalists... They just aren't.
Kryos, good for you for keeping to the topic instead of the usual skidmarks and drivel that make up the gdb.
You sound like an accomplished individual so I will state where we agree and where we disagree. But first, I also played muds in the early 90's and I did not spend the intervening years between U.Iowa and when I found this place again just playing games. I won't bore everyone with a list of my qualifications for posting; but, I am aware of the difference between a fantasy game and a real accomplishment (I am very satisfied with my life). When I play, it is only for fun.
So, where we agree. The core of your argument: it would have been nice to have the long term plans available for perusal and comment. Many are jumping to the conclusion that these changes are headed in a bad direction. That is an assumption.
Where we disagree: My first impression is the changes are headed in a good direction. I like more customization, not less. The class system seems archaic to me. I'm hopeful the game is heading towards packages of smaller sets of skills to build a character. Maybe even more than just 2 tiers (class, subguild) why not 3 or 4 or a skill point purchase system?
I think the magic system is horrible as it was. I'm hopeful that changes will allow characters to be as powerful as they were under the class system but with the ability to play with others more rather than just be an outcast. Maybe they'll get even more retro (I remember when the 4 elements were all the game had) and let elementalists be accepted by all and only sorcs and preservers are hated?
Again, assumptions but we start at a different place and I'm not upset or losing trust as you are. I'm hopeful.
As for the game statistics, my experience (I created a character after being away for awhile) is there are new people playing the game. I've had a couple of people ask how to do simple commands (OOC). I've been happy to see them in the game. I hope they are having fun because they are the future. Not dinosaurs like you and me.
---and someone posted before I finished. Nothing added.
PITCHFORKS
GET YER PITCHFORKS HEEYAH
Zoan, you may find this thread a valuable read. http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50811.0.html
As for the other two posts, I find myself having veered a bit and muddied the waters a tad myself. Perhaps my initial post or subsequent repetition was not sufficiently capable of conveying my position clearly. It really isn't about the constitution of the changes themselves, there is another thread or two for that. I hoped to keep this thread purely about the exclusion of the player base as a stakeholder.
For Asamoth, I would say this position has yet to be addressed either. To me, that makes it anything but futile.
Jeesh, Malifaxis calm down.
To Kryos' original point about stakeholders. In this instance, I prefer the term consumer - now there is argument that consumers are the ultimate stakeholders. So we'll agree that there is a model of this situation consisting where we as players are consumers/stakeholders.
We diverge greatly after that.
Put simply, I have no concern whatsoever about the manner or substance of the changes.
I feel no need to be consulted. I feel no stake in the success or failure of the endeavor.
It doesn't change my life one bit.
Why is that? Because this is a game. It is a small part of my world (although it can be a time hog when I do play). I can't fathom why it would matter so much to anyone.
If the change doesn't work out, then the reasonable course would be to go back or make adjustments. That's what any organization would do.
Quote from: Kryos on March 25, 2016, 09:08:02 PM
Malifaxis, I would urge you to read what I've repeatedly posted. You are beating a dead horse that wasn't even there to begin with. And I keep rubbing my chin watching people pile on to this non existent dead horse, asking why they are doing that.
Its not about this change. I've condone, praised, and exalted the notion of change in the game, while critiquing or agreeing with the nature of specific changes, but tried to keep that to the thread it belongs in. But this is not that thread.
This thread is about the half decade repeated process of surprise, and no apparent means of shaping the result. And as I've said, if there's a way to impact changes for player stakeholders, demonstrate.
Demonstrate? You realize changing the guild system was a player idea long before a staffer ever took up the reins. Anyways here's some examples off the top of my head.
QuoteDung buyer and clay kiln added to Luir's, thanks to player effort -- Nergal.
draw es was just put in after player feedback.
Sorc subguilds were altered after feedback.
Subguild rennovations were HEAVILY influenced by GDB discussion.
Banking changes were altered heavily after complaints on the GDB.
Climbing bonuses/detriments with items in hands were HEAVILY influenced by GDB discussion...
I could probably go on for a while.
I love that staff are taking risks and experimenting with major game systems.
This thread arises every time there's a change, when people don't feel like they've been "fully consulted on a change" i.e. something changed and they don't like it. It is kind of tiring to see.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 26, 2016, 12:23:51 AM
This thread arises every time there's a change, when people don't feel like they've been "fully consulted on a change" i.e. something changed and they don't like it. It is kind of tiring to see.
Then stop looking at it?
Yeah, I get it. It's similar to other discussions. You don't have to read it if you don't enjoy doing so!
I try, though I don't like people passive-aggressively whinging at others I respect, or self-deluding themselves that they're some sort of oppressed martyr.
It is easy to interpret a wide variety of tones into paragraphs of text, especially off the cuff text written from an emotionally charged place.
Personally, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when I read what they write, (or let's face it, I'd be a lot more heavy handed as a moderator).
Once again, though, not reading a thread that causes you to become irritated will help. And the content of discussions doesn't change the rules of the board, the very first of which is: Please don't flame. While you can criticize the opinions of other people, do so with respect for them as a fellow human.
Assuming you addressed my approach, Badskeelz. Ad hominem is rarely a useful means of discussion unless the point or claims are based on a person's individual merits. I am not whining, nor do I view myself as a martyr. I suspected during my initial post, which I had to fight back a lot of urge not to post it, that some degree of being made a pariah would come of it. But I can say confidently I do not believe that it would come from staff, and still don't, and not being a martyr or whining is part of why. The other part is I am not attacking, or spewing random unfounded hate/anger/so on at them or anyone else. I am critiquing, and critiquing is nominally the action of someone who has a degree of investment or care in what they critique. And I am attempting to critique in a constructive manner. Most importantly, this thread's topic is not about these things in the slightest.
RGS, I've observed those changes, but rather than chop them out I'll keep it concise and avoid derailing by saying that too isn't the point of this thread. Big, planned, staff initiated changes that completely change the experience of the game come in out of the blue and bop players over the head. That is the premise. It is not a contestable premise. It happens and has recently continued to.
We are not solicited for our opinions, perceptions, or enjoyment and instead have to offer up reactive input. It often devolves into muddied waters as partisan passions or person bias cloud the value of the discussion, and no anticipation and ability to discuss pre implementation creates a perception that our opinions are thus not valued and stokes a non reciprocal trust and vision. That is the recognized problem, and certainly merits discussion for at least some.
This thread does demonstrate some of the negative aspects that may be alleviated by altering the approach though, which I do find to be icing on the cake and poignant. Random ideas plucked with no rhyme or reason to be evaluated does not remedy this perception issue because there's no rubric for it, no consistent behavior, and it is player initiated. No one's coming to us, we're always going to them(the other stakeholders).
Quote from: Kryos on March 26, 2016, 01:23:31 AM
We are not solicited for our opinions, perceptions, or enjoyment and instead have to offer up reactive input. It often devolves into muddied waters as partisan passions or person bias cloud the value of the discussion, and no anticipation and ability to discuss pre implementation creates a perception that our opinions are thus not valued and stokes a non reciprocal trust and vision. That is the recognized problem, and certainly merits discussion for at least some.
This thread does demonstrate some of the negative aspects that may be alleviated by altering the approach though, which I do find to be icing on the cake and poignant. Random ideas plucked with no rhyme or reason to be evaluated does not remedy this perception issue because there's no rubric for it, no consistent behavior, and it is player initiated. No one's coming to us, we're always going to them(the other stakeholders).
I listed at least once where they did come to us first before making changes. There are just some decisions that it doesn't make sense to directly solicit information for. I suppose all I'm saying is you're taking a very hard-lined stance here that I disagree with. But if it came down to specifics we'd probably agree. I like the idea of staff telling us what's coming up and what we think about it. I just also think that isn't something they need to come to us for with every major decision.
I'm curious why you're so against with the idea of reactionary changes. If you get what you want in the end why would it matter that you didn't have complete information before things got started.
People are not getting what they want, but getting 'what you want' or not is a dangerous means of excusing isolation and exclusion. As for major changes, yes, I think we should be having discussion about all major changes. About minor changes, tweaks to balance, etc, no. That's the sort of thing that staff can/should do on the fly as needed. Just put up what you did and move on.
Reactionary discussion is problematic because it is often dismissed by the other stakeholders as not valuable. Reactionary is problematic because it is not them coming to us(on the whole, not some partitioned group, or cliques, or whatever). And that is huge. Reactionary is problematic because there's no stringent let alone rough guidelines as to what will be reaching and impacting and what will not. Reactionary is dangerous because it encourages insider behavior and distrust of it, apathy, disingenuous undermining of other people's opinions/wants/desires and so on. And that all seems to be demonstrated with some frequency.
Proactive discussions between stakeholders build trust. Its pretty much as simple as that.
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 26, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
Maybe to a certain extent. But definitely not to the extent that every major change going into the game is discussed with and voted on by the consumers. It honestly sounds ludicrous just saying it.
Most games make reactionary changes and updates based on feedback.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 26, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
Where money is to be made? Armageddon doesn't generate any moola, though, right? It's paid for by...?
Quote from: Armaddict on March 26, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
Comparing Armageddon to an Early Access, money grab is like comparing apples to oranges.
I wasn't making a statement. He said he knew of no place where it happened, as if it was an unheard of idea. It is not an unheard of idea, and is actually in practice.
Likewise...the fact that it's used by places that are for profit is completely irrelevant; they put emphasis on developing a product that will retain the support of their users, and so it is a good practice. Saying that such is because it's making money is, again, focusing on something that somehow makes the monetary involvement relevant. The point is that they wanted the support of their players to continue.
That is not a statement as to what's here. But your responses are not...in any way related to what my post was responding to.
It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.
Quote from: boog on March 27, 2016, 12:03:16 AM
It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.
...so you're...demeaning...-satisfaction- by...it's motivation?
Quote from: Armaddict on March 27, 2016, 12:08:55 AM
Quote from: boog on March 27, 2016, 12:03:16 AM
It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.
...so you're...demeaning...-satisfaction- by...it's motivation?
Not everything is an affront to your view. She was just saying there are different reasons for both.
Quote from: Asmoth on March 27, 2016, 12:11:58 AM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 27, 2016, 12:08:55 AM
Quote from: boog on March 27, 2016, 12:03:16 AM
It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.
...so you're...demeaning...-satisfaction- by...it's motivation?
Not everything is an affront to your view. She was just saying there are different reasons for both.
QuoteIt's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p
That is, actually, what was happening, though 'affront to your view' is not accurate. But she was saying exactly that.
I'm saying that if we were paying into this game, our satisfaction with the code changes might be more relevant, yes.
I don't think staff would willingly do something they would think would harm the game. That's just nonsense.
However, unless the changes are a complete wash, I don't think that there's an incentive to change them because a few people decided they really didn't like them.
Likewise, I'm not saying that we should definitely be on this platform. However, the method of attack was that said platform was impossible, not used, or unrealistic based on resources.
I only came in to say 'Actually, it's already being used in places where satisfaction is a priority', which led down this derail.
Quote from: Armaddict on March 27, 2016, 12:26:55 AM
Likewise, I'm not saying that we should definitely be on this platform. However, the method of attack was that said platform was impossible, not used, or unrealistic based on resources.
Maybe if you're making assumptions and infering things that aren't there that was the "method of attack". But if you go back and read again you'll see I said:
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
Since it's a little vague I'll clarify: I've never played, heard of, or known about games that do that to the extent Kryos seems to want, ergo it's probably not a great method of running a game.
...which was why I said what I said, to inform you.
Your statement was, indeed, the inference, which was that because you did not know of it...wait. You already stated that inference. Yes, I called it method of attack, because you were using it to debase his claim that it was a valid way of doing things.
Again, I stated that it was common in places where satisfaction was important, and does show success on those fronts.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 26, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
Maybe to a certain extent. But definitely not to the extent that every major change going into the game is discussed with and voted on by the consumers. It honestly sounds ludicrous just saying it.
Most games make reactionary changes and updates based on feedback.
I don't know that this is the case.
Mechwarrior Online, which has a large and very active community- a community that's actually more similar to a mud or indie game community than some big MMO, does a lot of this. Town Hall discussions for balance and new features, tons of balance done based on player feedback, public test servers before changes are rolled out for the actual game, and yes...road maps and outlines of planned upcoming features from the Dev-team. They preview some -very- ire-raising stuff on twitter, teamspeak and forum posts . And often - it's the players who have the best input and ideas because they're the ones spending hours actually playing. They might not have the big picture data, but
So the flak Kryos is getting for posting this is a little bit puzzling. I think 'losing trust in the staff' is knee-jerk of course, but really, vilifying him because you don't think it possible or preferable that staff or dev teams can preview/get feedback prior to making changes isn't warranted.
I trust that the staff have the game's best interest in heart. Do I feel that there could have hypothetically been a way to broach the big change rather than bomb-dropping? Yeah, I think so.
More important, of course, is being responsive to feedback, whether pre and post change, and I trust our brain eaters to do that.
Quote from: Bogre on March 27, 2016, 03:52:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 26, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
Maybe to a certain extent. But definitely not to the extent that every major change going into the game is discussed with and voted on by the consumers. It honestly sounds ludicrous just saying it.
Most games make reactionary changes and updates based on feedback.
I don't know that this is the case.
Mechwarrior Online, which has a large and very active community- a community that's actually more similar to a mud or indie game community than some big MMO, does a lot of this. Town Hall discussions for balance and new features, tons of balance done based on player feedback, public test servers before changes are rolled out for the actual game, and yes...road maps and outlines of planned upcoming features from the Dev-team. They preview some -very- ire-raising stuff on twitter, teamspeak and forum posts . And often - it's the players who have the best input and ideas because they're the ones spending hours actually playing. They might not have the big picture data, but
So the flak Kryos is getting for posting this is a little bit puzzling. I think 'losing trust in the staff' is knee-jerk of course, but really, vilifying him because you don't think it possible or preferable that staff or dev teams can preview/get feedback prior to making changes isn't warranted.
I trust that the staff have the game's best interest in heart. Do I feel that there could have hypothetically been a way to broach the big change rather than bomb-dropping? Yeah, I think so.
More important, of course, is being responsive to feedback, whether pre and post change, and I trust our brain eaters to do that.
I don't think anyone is saying, "Kyros is a bad guy for saying this!".
I do think that people are saying, "Kyros is looking at this the wrong way."
Which in my opinion he is, at least how I am taking his posts and views. He feels entitled to some type of say, because he plays this game.
Which is not the way it works, the only ones entitled to anything is the staff who pay for the hosting, the server maintenance and who code the game.
I think most people have been very civil with Kyros.
TBH, I'm not sure why you're so passive about it.
This is collaborative story telling, not simply game consumerism. I note that to both sides of the debate. It's our game- players and staff. It's not a mutually exclusive scenario for winning or enjoyment here.
Quote from: Bogre on March 27, 2016, 04:02:20 AM
TBH, I'm not sure why you're so passive about it.
This is collaborative story telling, not simply game consumerism. I note that to both sides of the debate. It's our game- players and staff. It's not a mutually exclusive scenario for winning or enjoyment here.
I disagree. We are free to take a break (I frequently do) and quit playing. We are free to give up on a character and store (or just get tired of typing flee). Staff has to keep the story going.
Maybe it is better not to lump all players under the same banner. I am just a casual player and I am here to enjoy the experience.
I don't assume that the changes were created in a vacuum just because I wasn't invited to the focus group.
Whatever validation you feel you need from staff or this game - I don't need it. It is that simple.
I can't comprehend why it is so important to you. When you turn your pc off, your life isn't changed by this game.
No attempt at using logic is going to sway me, I think you are over emotional for getting up in arms about it (pun intended).
I know the difference between reaching a conclusion and trying to justify a conclusion.
I'll reiterate. The decision making process does not bother me.
Quote from: burble on March 27, 2016, 06:48:25 AM
Quote from: Bogre on March 27, 2016, 04:02:20 AM
TBH, I'm not sure why you're so passive about it.
This is collaborative story telling, not simply game consumerism. I note that to both sides of the debate. It's our game- players and staff. It's not a mutually exclusive scenario for winning or enjoyment here.
I disagree. We are free to take a break (I frequently do) and quit playing. We are free to give up on a character and store (or just get tired of typing flee). Staff has to keep the story going.
Maybe it is better not to lump all players under the same banner. I am just a casual player and I am here to enjoy the experience.
I don't assume that the changes were created in a vacuum just because I wasn't invited to the focus group.
Whatever validation you feel you need from staff or this game - I don't need it. It is that simple.
I can't comprehend why it is so important to you. When you turn your pc off, your life isn't changed by this game.
No attempt at using logic is going to sway me, I think you are over emotional for getting up in arms about it (pun intended).
I know the difference between reaching a conclusion and trying to justify a conclusion.
I'll reiterate. The decision making process does not bother me.
Exactly, do I wanna play a ranger/sorcerer some day, damn right.
But if that never happens my life isn't changed in any meaningful way, it's along the same level as one of my favorite restaurants closing down. Am I disappointed? Sure, but it doesn't affect my bills, my health, my job, my family so it doesn't really matter.
I want a Bentley too some day, but again, doesn't stop me from driving my normal car until then or forever if it never happens. It almost seems like to me that people are acting like changes to this game are actually affecting your day to day life, and if that's true, I think you need to talk to someone about your problems and get some help.
Be frustrated, be upset, be indifferent, be happy, but know that NONE of those feelings good or bad give you any right to ANYTHING.
I think you guys drew the wrong conclusion there. I'm not bent out of shape or emotionally beat up about all of this.
I mean, I sometimes don't play for months too, but I'm invested in this game, in that I would like to see it flourish. Discussing the way that happens isn't taboo. I'm not interested in labeling anyone as entitled to things in Arm, nor in demanding staff be obligated to do something. Both sides should be invested in keeping this game going. If you feel casual enough about Arm that you don't mind at all what happens, fine, but don't ask that everyone else take such a stance.
Everyone is here for the same reason: to have fun playing, running or developing Arm.
I wouldn't be comfortable with majority rule when it's by people who have no real grounding in what they're talking about. Players don't have access to any of the behind-the-curtain game data, and I personally don't want us to. I don't see much point in being consulted in a decision when I can't make an informed decision, and I don't want to be able to make an informed decision because I have absolutely no desire to learn the inner workings of the game. The mystery is part of the fun for me.
Honestly, if I wanted to be consulted on decisions, I'd join staff.
^^ boom.
I've come to peace with that. I may know a lot about the game, but it's impossible for me to have staff viewpoint on things.
Quote from: Bogre on March 27, 2016, 03:52:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on March 26, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 26, 2016, 11:35:57 PM
I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.
It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.
So the flak Kryos is getting for posting this is a little bit puzzling. I think 'losing trust in the staff' is knee-jerk of course, but really, vilifying him because you don't think it possible or preferable that staff or dev teams can preview/get feedback prior to making changes isn't warranted.
Vilify, flak? Eh. I also never said it was impossible to preview or get feedback prior to making changes... I in fact said staff has already done that.
My own feelings on this issue have nothing to do with a lack of consultation but instead are about yet another unique part (arguably the most unique element of the game when considering the things that have been excised over the years, outside of Tuluk of course) removed from the player accessible part of the game. I know of no game that has shadow elementalists that function like Drovians. Or an Anti-Magick class that functions like Nilazi. Lightning elementalists are arguably less unique, although in my view a well thought out element when you consider the desert theme of the game. Could these parts have used finessing and updating? Sure. We just had the other 4 elemental guilds transformed into subguilds. There could have definitely been modifications done to how Drovians, Nilazi and Elkrosians function. Instead they just got removed.
The more unique elements that are removed from the game, the more generic Armageddon becomes. There is nothing unique about fire elementalists, water elementalists, air elementalists and earth elementalists. Dark Sun has them. Al Qadim has them. Pathfinder has them (they call them sorcerers). Games have had them for years. Reducing the magic options to those and sorcerers makes the game feel more generic then it previously did. The more generic it becomes the less appeal it has to me. A revamp of the Elementalists Quarter and removal of in game references to Drovians and Elkrosians (to avoid confusing those poor new players) seem inevitable to me.
None of that is related to prior consultation. None of this is fixable by "trying out the new subguilds" because none of this is related to the parts that were kept. I'm concerned about the parts that have been removed.
Does anyone trust that psionicists aren't going to be excised next? After all, you could argue they're not people either. In fact any guild can. Including the warrior. Because face it: most of the guilds have been fairly one-dimensional. If we're looking at the coded skills as opposed to how people play those roles of course.
This is why America is the way it is. Consumerism. People don't want to be a part of whatever they're enjoying anymore. Some people don't even know meat comes from animals. They just buy it in stores.
While comparing armageddon to real life events, I realize that armageddon is just a game. But I enjoy it. Not only that, the staff welcome new ideas. So we give them as well as our opinions. Not only, do they welcome our new ideas they implement them. The direct cause and effect is possible. When we go unheard without explanation it makes sense that we should be upset. They welcome ideas and then shun them without explaining why. And of course, the reasons may be diplomatic. Choosing the right words, affecting minds a certain way, all of these things affect us, the consumers.
If a great deal of real world consumers told the farmers that they didn't like the way the meat was brown they would color the meat red with a mostly harmless food coloring to make it look ''fresh''. If a great deal of consumers said they didn't like the way the cows were treated before ''processing''... any change to this would hinder production. Any change to this would cost a great deal of money as well as put the lives of the consumers at risk. There are other solutions. Other ... more reasonable solutions. Increased cattle farmer to cattle ratio or whatever... but the idea is that the big business can't just stop what they're doing and continued mistreatment of animals before processing is going to upset the consumers that are complaining.
an sincere explanation of things could make the angry consumers feel better knowing that the cattle ranchers are doing everything they can. ... if they are.
fortunately we're only talking about a game. No lives are actually at stake and the number of people affected are much smaller than an entire nation. And the staff /has/ responded to us. The staff /does/ respond to us, we even have live chat meetings that I always frick'n miss. We are the consumers! Staff want us to consume as much as we want to consume.
But... change doesn't always happen in the blink of an eye. Conversations have to be made, knowledge has to be gained, truth must be decided and then action can be taken.
Saying it is foolish to invest any real emotion into something a person consumes is lazy thinking (unrelated) and is the reason America is where it is today. The "man" doesn't always win. We always let him be the winner.
It is not useless to speak to the hand that feeds. Especially if you're trying to make things better. Discussion leads to knowledge and knowledge is power!
and of course... the staff could act as tyrants, but I mean... it's just a game and I'm going to keep playing and choppin' mutha fuckuz up with bone swords.
I opened this thread with pure intentions, and I had hoped to solicit a real over dinner style conversation with people and staff alike about the reciprocity standard of trust. People were trying to flip the table and people made excellent points. In the end, this conversation didn't come to be. I admit, I'm pretty sad about that. I can see the perception of a viper in the grass this discussion represents, but I also meant it when I say reciprocity is invaluable and I didn't come with a hand behind my back.
This would be my sign off on this topic, unless the conversation is sparked, here or elsewhere. For those that participated, for or against, thank you.
I'm such a Jerk for pushing this thread to the top, but the first post kind of stuck with me.
I haven't played in awhile, thinking I might be up again for Armageddon.
Then I read the magick changes.
I more then likely will not be playing.
Why? Because A great majority of you got to experience these things, the power of sorcery, incredible magicks, dark evil niliaz plots.
Me? None of it, and now I'll never experience it. Ya'll close the gates on something that always interested me, and it feels going forward more will be closed, more will be removed and only the veterans, will have the memories, the privilege of those experiences. That stuff motivated me some days to really get into the game.
I got to play... a couple of Rukkian's and loved it, though I died newbishly before I could really get into the RP, to know I'll never be a strange drovian or something equally as awesome. I dunno, it's a very big fuck you newb in my book. But oh well, I've never known this community to have much sympathy in that regard or think a player might genuinely be interested in a purely magick role.
Thankfully the alt-gdb at least allow me to read the experiences of other players and what some of things were possible in game, though like I've already said. I'm truly disappointed I'll never experience them myself.
Now that I'm done being a Jerk and resurrecting this thread, continue your regularly schedule GDB.