State of Armageddon from a Player's Perspective

[Rahnevyn]

Aside from the usual stuff like trying to be as awesome as I can for my clans, and tackling all the normal staff duties, here are my personal goals for trying to improve the game as a whole:

1) Player support: In my short time as a returned staff member I've already seen a few cases where a promising newbie played for a few days and left, never to return. Sometimes they had a bummer death, or sometimes they couldn't get past the syntax, but more than once it just seemed like they couldn't find enough people to connect and roleplay with. That makes me sad. As well, there are lots of you who are awesome players with 3-12 months of playtime and are doing great, but could maybe use just a bit more guidance, support, or personalized interaction to grow into seasoned veterans. Regrettably, I feel like it's too easy for players like that to stay beneath our radar as staff and not receive the praise they deserve, or the gentle redirection to keep bad habits from forming. Today's newbies are tomorrow's veterans, today's veterans are tomorrow's kickass players in high profile roles, and today's kickass players might be tomorrow's new staff members, but we need to make sure we don't lose people on the vine along the way. That's a more important goal to me, personally, than just increasing our numbers. So how do we help with this? Personally, I try to leave positive account notes/pinfos, and help out with answering requests/wishes/player needs in game whenever I can. I think it isn't always the big things, it's really the little things that make all the difference in Armageddon.

2) Typos: we have a backlog of something like 1000 typos across the game (including rooms, npcs, objects, helpfiles, and coded messages.) For a text based game, I find that below the standard of quality we should strive for. My personal goal is to hit at least 20 or so of those guys per week, so that by the end of the year we're at or close to 0. Then we can start on bugs.


What we sometimes lose sight of in the quest to find things that are wrong with Armageddon is that the game does a hell of a lot of things right. Sure, we want to focus on our weaknesses and reduce them, but we also want to play up our strengths as much as we can. Deep, engaging roleplay, immersion in a consistent and believable setting, and a world that reacts and responds to player stimuli large and small, are things that we can and should be doing better than any other MUD out there. Those are the things I think the staff and players could stand to hone in on in discussions like this, along with focusing on the mission statement as posted by Nyr.

So, going back to Bartle types, I don't think Armageddon will ever be a game that caters to K players as well as GodWars, or E players as well as some of the MUDs that are much larger than us in terms of size; although this is debatable since Armageddon has plenty of interesting secrets you can uncover if you explore. If you want to use the definition of an A player strictly as somebody who enjoys building up coded skills and using them to accomplish ever-more-difficult goals, we'll probably never do that as well as Aardwolf. I don't think this should be a shock to anyone, and I don't think we should try and compete in those demographics anyway. We know what sort of players we want to attract, and we've attracted plenty of them; the question should be how do we attract more of the same people we have, and get them to stick around longer.

[Nyr]

The standards have changed, and in many cases, the staff haven't necessarily been around when the MUD had a drastically different dynamic.

Two producers have been on staff since before you started played the game.  One of them crafted this document with Sanvean in 2000.  The standards of the game have changed and improved (unless you really were keen on halflings hanging out in the Labyrinth)...the fact that these standards changed does not make the new standards bad.

What I think is a shame she didn't include in her Accountability list is an accountability to listen to player ideas and incorporate.  It happens, but in my perspective, this is an area that has drastically changed over time.

There's a reason that isn't there.  This is the mission statement for all staff, and that mission statement does not include an obligation to incorporate every single player idea.  If every staff idea can't be implemented, then every player idea can't be implemented.  Things won't be implemented for lots of reasons.  We have a certain amount of bandwidth for staff work and that must be taken into account for any work on anything.  Even without this obligation, we do listen to player ideas and incorporate them when it is feasible and when the idea fits with the gameworld and our other overall goals.  See the host of code ideas I mentioned; many of them were player ideas at some point.  There's a thread on the code forum that covers that.

As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things.  Not public statements, but real discussion.  Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).

Feel free to ask and get involved!

[slvrmoontiger]

I've been skimming all of the follow up posts in this subject. I did read the full writing by Kyros. I believe it was very well thought out and I know how much time and effort was put into it and I applaud Kyros for this. That is not to say I complete agree with what was said.

Having said that I'll put my opinions in on here which people may freely agree or disagree with, that is everyones perogative to do so.

First of all I still find it quite sad that the standard MMORPG is WoW. I have tried many times to play WoW and each time I have HATED (yes that word is capped to show how much I hated it, then even hate is an understatement) it. The ONLY MMORPG I have really liked and had fun playing was DAoC (Dark Age of Camelot).

Next part I decided as a gamble I would waste some time taking this Bartle test. It was exactly as I expected it to be: Here's two ways I want you to pick you have to pick one of them. There were times when neither of the answers applied to me and there were times when I was forced to choose one when both weighed equally in my mind. People are NOT computers there is an on or off switch for everything. The decision isn't always black or white. People have variations of grey. Having said that I came out pretty close together in socializing and exploring. Makes it no big surprise that a majority of my characters tend to be ranger or outdoor type characters. Makes it no big surprise that the one time I decided to play a Stormer I HATED it (yeah fully capitalized again).

Achievement speak, yes I love to achieve... But my achievements aren't always "Be able to kill a 'met in one hit" type achievements. Some days I'll get on Armageddon and my achievement will be for my character to make one new friend, you say "But wait, finding a new friend is socializing" Yeah it is... Its also my idea of achievement. But right you think that's socializing, again that's your opinion and you're free to think that.

Creation speaking, I HATE crafting. My characters only tend to craft while they are sitting around for it to be light out, or if they are actively talking and RPing a situation with people. So creation wise for me might be to create and strengthen a plotline, friendship, relationship. Right again this could be considered socializing.

I do enjoy Armageddon quite a lot. Whenever I see a new player around that seems to be struggling I try to help them out. Recently, there was a new player that a character of mine met (I won't give many details about this new player for anyone to know, but I'm trying to make a point so hopefully it will be enough and not too much). This new player was asking lots of questions about IC information trying to garner it up. Asked the story behind this or that. Why is this done or that done like this? Tell me the stories about this, please. I enjoyed that. I give huge props to this new player, whoever you might be. Unfortunately, like so many of the new players this one was found dead the next RL day. I felt bad and wondered if the new player would ever play again. I hope my trying to help them out to learn IC information IC'ly would get them to stay and not become discouraged.

Now I'll discuss my thoughts on why new players don't last long. Again these are my own opinions and you are welcome to yours. I just ask that you read them thoughtfully and keep an open mind.

1) Tuluk is very new player friendly in way of resources and hunting. It sucks in way of active players to help out new players (I wonder if more people had been around if the new player I talked about above would have lost his character or still had the same 1st character around and alive and soaking up information so he/she could become a great player). Staff has stated they are working to remedy this. I'll wait and see, but for now the population seems woeful MOST of the time.

2) Comments from staff of the sorts of I tolerate Tuluk (as if this is a forced toleration) from someone who is part of the Northern Staff Group is very disheartening for me. If you feel you only tolerate that, perhaps you could switch and go to a staff group where you enjoy it and let a staffer that enjoys Tuluk move to your place so that someone that is happy with Tuluk actually is working for the players and with the players. When I saw that statement I was quite hurt that someone that didn't want to be working on Tuluk actually was, it almost made me cry to think that maybe things would different if there were people who actually loved Tuluk and wanted to make it better on the Tuluk Staff Group. Maybe I misinterpreted the meaning behind the statement, if so I apologize and would like to hear from that staffer as to what exactly was meant.

3) New players don't use the resources available. They don't read the documentation, they don't use the help files, they don't read the GDB. Its been so long since I was a new player I'm not sure what the new account emails look like. Perhaps something could be done that a new GDB account is created with the new MUD account and all the information gets sent in that Welcome to Armageddon email. Along with that the documentation links could be sent, perhaps the FAQ and simple stuff like here's some useful first commands that you should know. Maybe this is already being done, but I'm not sure like I said I haven't seen that new player email in many many many years.

4) I've heard discouraging stuff from players here and there. I know one particular player who was advised by a helper in the helper chat not to waste a special application for an extended subguild, because as the helper said your character won't last long enough to make use of it anyways. I was floored when I heard that. Ironic thing is that this player is still on their first character and is wishing they had done the extended subguild as their first character is now I believe over a couple IG years old. I think helpers should re-evaluate what they are telling new players. I don't advise to sugar coat things, of course not Zalanthas is a harsh environment and new player's first characters do die quickly for the most part. But I believe helpers should be there to encourage new players. Let them know all the alternatives. Don't just automatically assume that the first character is going to die in a couple RL days. If I was a new player and I was told You're character will probably be dead in a couple RL days I probably wouldn't play. I'd say screw that.

I think I've said what I wanted to say. I did take time and looked into this before just rambling on. There are a few things that do frustrate me about Armageddon. Do I love playing it and love being on it, sure of course I do. I wouldn't play if I didn't. I'd be willing to help out to making whatever changes need be made or helping anyway I can as well.

[Twilight]

The standards have changed, and in many cases, the staff haven't necessarily been around when the MUD had a drastically different dynamic.

Two producers have been on staff since before you started played the game.  One of them crafted this document with Sanvean in 2000.  The standards of the game have changed and improved (unless you really were keen on halflings hanging out in the Labyrinth)...the fact that these standards changed does not make the new standards bad.

I don't remember if I started in 93 or 94, much less the exact wizlist at that time.  However, in context of my post, my memory was that Morgenes, Nessalin, Tiernan and Saikun were around at that time, possibly Tenebrius (but I have a niggling feeling I am mistaking that for someone else), and that formed my assumption.  Obviously I could be missing some and there could be staff that were players then and became staff later.  While it is great have have some long lasting staff like that, that is hardly the majority, which was the basis for the comment.

I seem to remember discussing some of the things that went into that document at one point at the APM, staff and players, but I don't remember the context in whether it was before or after it actually got put together.  The dynamic of that discussion (and side conversations) is just something we couldn't have here on the GDB, the request tool or at an online player/staff meeting.

My take on changing dynamic was not meant as a jab at staff or the evolving standards, but rather on things like perspective of staff / player relations, and how that has changed, for better and or worse and for different reasons, over the years, and that today is very different from before, in that respect.  Communication channels are certainly not ISCA, mostly for the better, but a certain personal element has been lost.

What I think is a shame she didn't include in her Accountability list is an accountability to listen to player ideas and incorporate.  It happens, but in my perspective, this is an area that has drastically changed over time.

There's a reason that isn't there.  This is the mission statement for all staff, and that mission statement does not include an obligation to incorporate every single player idea.  If every staff idea can't be implemented, then every player idea can't be implemented.  Things won't be implemented for lots of reasons.  We have a certain amount of bandwidth for staff work and that must be taken into account for any work on anything.  Even without this obligation, we do listen to player ideas and incorporate them when it is feasible and when the idea fits with the gameworld and our other overall goals.  See the host of code ideas I mentioned; many of them were player ideas at some point.  There's a thread on the code forum that covers that.

I definitely worded that badly if that was your interpretation of what I was trying to say.  I was thinking more in terms of treating the players or playerbase like a partner.  The post that you referenced actually highlights the shift fairly well I think.  The ideas there are all code ideas.  It seems like (again, my perspective goes back to 93 or 94) the adoption of code ideas is fairly constant, if not as great as it has ever been except for times of prolific coding by certain individuals.  But other ideas, around perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game and such seem to be a more limited conversation.

Certainly the dynamic and the feel of the interaction has changed.  For instance, at one point I thought that housing was represented in the gameworld in a way that didn't make much sense.  I wrote something up, and sent it in, explaining my perspective that housing should be more communal in nature, but that all the private spaces not related to clans were essentially single family dwellings (at that time).  The interaction during that made me feel like not just the coded submission, but the idea behind it, in terms of my perspective of the gameworld, and how different housing would make sense for it, was gratefully accepted and valued.  That building was eventually converted to the automated apartment script, later, and seemed to serve as the template for much of the housing to come (single axis hallway, doors off each side, most one chamber rooms, higher end multiple rooms).  Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.

As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things.  Not public statements, but real discussion.  Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).

Feel free to ask and get involved!

Not actually sure how to take that.

[Rahnevyn]

Certainly the dynamic and the feel of the interaction has changed.  For instance, at one point I thought that housing was represented in the gameworld in a way that didn't make much sense.  I wrote something up, and sent it in, explaining my perspective that housing should be more communal in nature, but that all the private spaces not related to clans were essentially single family dwellings (at that time).  The interaction during that made me feel like not just the coded submission, but the idea behind it, in terms of my perspective of the gameworld, and how different housing would make sense for it, was gratefully accepted and valued.  That building was eventually converted to the automated apartment script, later, and seemed to serve as the template for much of the housing to come (single axis hallway, doors off each side, most one chamber rooms, higher end multiple rooms).  Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.

Would you care to unpack your last sentence more? What's changed, why would you not want to submit contributions like that today when you would have previously? I'd honestly like to know.

[Nyr]

2) Comments from staff of the sorts of I tolerate Tuluk (as if this is a forced toleration) from someone who is part of the Northern Staff Group is very disheartening for me. If you feel you only tolerate that, perhaps you could switch and go to a staff group where you enjoy it and let a staffer that enjoys Tuluk move to your place so that someone that is happy with Tuluk actually is working for the players and with the players. When I saw that statement I was quite hurt that someone that didn't want to be working on Tuluk actually was, it almost made me cry to think that maybe things would different if there were people who actually loved Tuluk and wanted to make it better on the Tuluk Staff Group. Maybe I misinterpreted the meaning behind the statement, if so I apologize and would like to hear from that staffer as to what exactly was meant.

I assume you're talking about me when I said this:

We on staff also tend to...tolerate...Tuluk.

In context, this was in response to a player complaining about Tuluk getting a lot of attention, the implication in their words was that Tuluki staffers are Tuluk fanboys/fangirls and don't like Allanak and that there was some massive conspiracy to just not do as much stuff to Allanak because no one on staff liked it.  The point made wasn't that we on staff despise Tuluk.  It was that Tuluk has a lot of interesting potential, we see that, we have a vision to see it through, and unfortunately, we have to slog through work to fix the things that do not work that well at all to get to that interesting potential.  More context from that statement:

Again, why fix what isn't broken?  You point out here how much you hate Tuluk and how much it is intimidating and how it sucks and what-not, I point out that we're actually working to collect things, expand docs, etc--make it make sense, have a foundation, etc--and then you're saying "well obviously Allanak is getting the short end of the stick!"  There have been no major pushes to change Allanak because Allanak works fairly well on its own.  It can use some love (and it has gotten it, not sure how you've missed the building work), but it's more of a tender loving care thing rather than a full frontal lobotomy and colorectal cleanse.

That may come as a shock to some people, I dunno.  We on staff love Allanak.  I've had some great PCs from there and from Luir's, too.  It might need a bit of tweaking here and there, it might need a documentation revamp/overhaul just like every other clan has gotten/will get, but a complete "from the ground up" workover that requires stripping out stuff that simply sucks ass?  It doesn't need that. 

We on staff also tend to...tolerate...Tuluk.  Even when we're putting through these changes and stuff, we have to (at times) grab the reins and yank the player towards "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE NOW."  It is frustrating to have to do that.  There are parts we like. There are parts that need work.  And there are parts that raised enough ire over enough time that it resulted in an HRPT as the only plot-sized vehicle that could effect that much change.  As someone invested in over ten thousand words of documentation changes in the templarate alone, let me be the first to say that I have mixed opinions about the city-state of Tuluk.  While working on something that absolutely blows that must be fixed, I despise it.  When animating something with the rest of our wonderful team to show the new change, I love it.  When explaining how it could be and how it should be and how it (hopefully) will be with some additional work, I love it as well.  It's the same feeling I've gotten working on fixing stuff in other clans I've handled.

I'm sorry this upset you.  Luckily, the quote in context is nowhere near what you are saying! 

4) I've heard discouraging stuff from players here and there. I know one particular player who was advised by a helper in the helper chat not to waste a special application for an extended subguild, because as the helper said your character won't last long enough to make use of it anyways. I was floored when I heard that. Ironic thing is that this player is still on their first character and is wishing they had done the extended subguild as their first character is now I believe over a couple IG years old. I think helpers should re-evaluate what they are telling new players. I don't advise to sugar coat things, of course not Zalanthas is a harsh environment and new player's first characters do die quickly for the most part. But I believe helpers should be there to encourage new players. Let them know all the alternatives. Don't just automatically assume that the first character is going to die in a couple RL days. If I was a new player and I was told You're character will probably be dead in a couple RL days I probably wouldn't play. I'd say screw that.

The proper place to bring that up would be with staff in a prompt player complaint rather than complaining publicly about a Helper on the GDB some unspecified time later.  Even if as you described, we won't be able to get logs from that far back.  Dropping some honesty on a newbie isn't a bad idea, and I'd give the Helpers the benefit of the doubt:  if they did so, they did so very nicely and not in a snide way.

[Nyr]

I don't remember if I started in 93 or 94, much less the exact wizlist at that time.  However, in context of my post, my memory was that Morgenes, Nessalin, Tiernan and Saikun were around at that time, possibly Tenebrius (but I have a niggling feeling I am mistaking that for someone else), and that formed my assumption.  Obviously I could be missing some and there could be staff that were players then and became staff later.  While it is great have have some long lasting staff like that, that is hardly the majority, which was the basis for the comment.

Ah, probably my mistake.  I was going off of whatever known account we have for you which lists 1998.  No big deal, I was just pointing out that the direction of the game overall is influenced and shaped by the Producers, two of whom have been here longer than you.

I definitely worded that badly if that was your interpretation of what I was trying to say.  I was thinking more in terms of treating the players or playerbase like a partner.  The post that you referenced actually highlights the shift fairly well I think.  The ideas there are all code ideas.  It seems like (again, my perspective goes back to 93 or 94) the adoption of code ideas is fairly constant, if not as great as it has ever been except for times of prolific coding by certain individuals.  But other ideas, around perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game and such seem to be a more limited conversation.

What is an example of something that you feel should be discussed more, but isn't?  If nothing else, I'm sure an answer for why this has changed could be provided (if it has changed).

Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.

Why not?

As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things.  Not public statements, but real discussion.  Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).

Feel free to ask and get involved!

Not actually sure how to take that.

...you're here...I'm here...you know where this is going.   That's right.  Real discussion.    

Basically, I just meant that communication is a two-way street--that if you wish for staff to discuss something, you can also open up the conversation.

[Delusion]

I'm not Twilight, but that last sentence to me seemed to read as this (obviously biased towards my own views on the game, and possibly entirely off the mark):

There does not seem to be a lot that players can do to influence the world. They're even more helpless than the characters they play, in that regard. Their characters, at least, can do the whole "be the change" thing, and push to make things occur in-game, albeit with the chance of total failure and quite possibly no tangible end result. Players, meanwhile, are told that if they want to see a change, they should play a character who attempts to enact that change - and if they are playing a long-term character that has no business trying to make such a change, tough. Other changes are way beyond what a character either could accomplish or would even have an interest in accomplishing, too.

(I get the sense that I'm deviating further and further from what Twilight meant here, but might as well finish)

To give some examples:

If players would like to see more tribes in the game, whether to populate the Tablelands with some actual humans beyond just a few wandering NPCs, or to see some recognisable city elf tribes spring up, there isn't much they can do. Playing a tribal PC with three other members of an immediate family doesn't cut it, and doesn't lead to long-term change.

If players would like to see more items in-game, they are typically directed to mastercraft these items, unless there is a call for submissions. Sometimes, they simply can't mastercraft things, or it's something that shouldn't really need the attention of an artisan - inexpensive items that would surely be available to the entire vNPC populace without too much trouble, in particular.

If players would like to see dwellings or private rooms in the game that aren't apartments, well, there's nothing they can really do about it. Hovels and shacks are the sole domain of vNPCs, and even though they're actually referenced in the room descriptions for an inn or two, inn rooms just aren't really a thing.

And one more somewhat more tangentially related thing:

If players want to establish their own groups that aren't directly tied into coded clans to begin with, but eventually does become a coded clan, with some of the things that only clans get, they are going to have a nigh-impossible time of it. Personally, I would love to see it made easier. It's kind of an OOC restriction as is. Warehouses were a nice step in the right direction, although making it slightly easier to obtain a barracks space and even a sentry NPC would be fantastic. And if they haven't made nice to the IC powers that be, sure, they might be run out of town/murdered, but I think people would be willing to accept that.

[Nyr]

If players would like to see more tribes in the game, whether to populate the Tablelands with some actual humans beyond just a few wandering NPCs, or to see some recognisable city elf tribes spring up, there isn't much they can do. Playing a tribal PC with three other members of an immediate family doesn't cut it, and doesn't lead to long-term change.

That's true, it does need staff to build those and it would also need staff to staff those if they are meant to be playable.  This is a mix of several factors--player consolidation, sometimes plot, sometimes staff bandwidth vs player interest.  Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to please all of the players all of the time.

If players would like to see more items in-game, they are typically directed to mastercraft these items, unless there is a call for submissions. Sometimes, they simply can't mastercraft things, or it's something that shouldn't really need the attention of an artisan - inexpensive items that would surely be available to the entire vNPC populace without too much trouble, in particular.

Also true, but part of the mission statement mentions using existing items when possible.  We haven't done a submission call for too much in a while.  I wouldn't mind doing so if I had a project for building items that were public, but I don't have one and I don't have time to do it. 

If players would like to see dwellings or private rooms in the game that aren't apartments, well, there's nothing they can really do about it. Hovels and shacks are the sole domain of vNPCs, and even though they're actually referenced in the room descriptions for an inn or two, inn rooms just aren't really a thing.

Also true.  It relies on staff to build it.  Looks like Adhira is heading in that direction, though.  Not hovels and shacks, but apartment work.  Admittedly, that isn't what you want, but that's not really the direction the game is heading, so take that for what it's worth.

If players want to establish their own groups that aren't directly tied into coded clans to begin with, but eventually does become a coded clan, with some of the things that only clans get, they are going to have a nigh-impossible time of it. Personally, I would love to see it made easier. It's kind of an OOC restriction as is. Warehouses were a nice step in the right direction, although making it slightly easier to obtain a barracks space and even a sentry NPC would be fantastic. And if they haven't made nice to the IC powers that be, sure, they might be run out of town/murdered, but I think people would be willing to accept that.

That's an area that has been discussed before probably, but "create-your-own-coded-clan" is complicated.  If it is too easy, it has the potential to completely overwhelm independents staff and unbalance the game focus from a staff perspective.  If it is difficult enough, players might think it's too hard and not even try.  As you say, warehouses are a nice step in the right direction.  This was implemented with the intention of seeing where players took it, though.

[Delusion]

Yeah, on the tribes thing, I can appreciate that diluting the playerbase isn't necessarily a good idea. Having an NPC human tribe or two - even if undocumented, generic tribes - with camps in the Tablelands might go a way to changing the perception that the Tablelands are the sole domain of elves and gith, and bolster what the documentation actually says, though I guess they might not get interacted with much. City elves - well, that's been discussed loads.

I get the existing items thing. If there are already thousands of items in the database (there are, I know), why make more when we only use a fraction of what's there? However, I get the sense that a bunch of pretty mundane items aren't really available to PCs through any regular means. Setting aside GMH items, since those can be obtained in-game and staff can load them if they aren't craftable, I'd say there are still quite a few things that can neither be crafted or bought from NPC shopkeepers. Obviously I don't have any data but the purely anecdotal on that, in most cases - I'm mostly going by what I see NPCs wearing (and I've sometimes seen items crop up in shops and can tell exactly which NPC was murdered to obtain said item  ). Perhaps I just miss things, but in my ideal world, at least, if there's a fairly generic, mundane item that isn't sold by a clan that can put in item orders requests, and it can't be crafted, then it should be available from an NPC shopkeeper. Again, I don't have hard data, so I may just have a skewed perspective, but it seems a shame if items are locked away and inaccessible.

I'm certainly not about to go quit over the lack of PC-owned hovels. It was more just an example of where a player's character can't really be the change IC, and where something that exists in abundance in the virtual world isn't available to PCs -- and players themselves can't really alter it, either.

Actually, regarding that and PC-created clans - are you at all familiar with the "dwelling" code used by Atonement and Harshlands?

Edit: re: the last question of mine, they're subtly different from each other, so I should say or rather than and, I suppose, but in both cases, are/were tremendously useful. And I can go put it in a new thread rather than derailing this one.

[Eyeball]

I don't remember if I started in 93 or 94, much less the exact wizlist at that time.  However, in context of my post, my memory was that Morgenes, Nessalin, Tiernan and Saikun were around at that time, possibly Tenebrius (but I have a niggling feeling I am mistaking that for someone else), and that formed my assumption.

I remember the top staff as being Azroen, Jhavalar, Kelvik,  Nessalin, T<something>, and Ur, back in '95. And Bram, although he left after the Israeli hacking incident. Odd, Azroen's not even on the wizlist anymore.

[Kryos]

Lots of good thoughts and points to chew on in this thread so far, which is great to see.  I'll come back with more thoughts tomorrow evening myself!

[FantasyWriter]

I am really enjoying the dialog in this thread. Staffers, thank you very much for the open discussion.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Staff has gotten a lot more commutative about things in the recent years. I can't see this as anything but a good thing. Too often in the past, there was this attitude of "fuck off" from staff. It wasn't sent in those words and it may not have even been intended thusly, but it seemed to be there, between the lines.

These days, staff seems to want to both ensure that we understand things, and foster a belief within us that our thoughts are heard, and that they care about what we think and feel concerning this beautiful story we share together. I really can't underline and highlight how much this more open attitude and this new standard of communication really means to me, as a player.

So, yeah. Thanks.

[Harmless]

It just occured to me, it'd be pretty cool if the staff would send you a little email to your account when you got a positive account note. it doesn't have to say what the note is, just, 'you got a positive note on your account! send an account notes request to see it.'

that'd be cool because someone said they try to retain newish players by putting positive account notes on em but if they never put in an account notes request they may never even know they got those positive notes

[Zoan]

That'd be nice. I know they like informing you of when you get negative ones!

Not...not that I get them. I just hear stuff, y'know...

[HavokBlue]

It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.

[Zoan]

Every goddamn week Nyr sends me vitrolic emails about how terrible a player I am. It's like we're married.

[Nyr]

It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.

Already usually the case.

[ShaLeah]

It would be interesting if staff informed players anytime they received a negative note (that isn't secret) to allow for a dialogue regarding what happened and if there's something the player can to do avoid the mistake or improve on the situation in the future.

Already usually the case.

I've learned that what we perceive as players to be a negative account often times isn't. It's meant to inform, not chastise.

[Eurynomos]

We also do try to send notes to Players (either via character reports or an email) when they receive positive attention from Staff, and when we note their account accordingly.

[Twilight]

Ah, probably my mistake.  I was going off of whatever known account we have for you which lists 1998.  No big deal, I was just pointing out that the direction of the game overall is influenced and shaped by the Producers, two of whom have been here longer than you.

I thought my account had been created when the account system went in (which would be an indication that it wasn't when I started playing), but maybe not, its been awhile.

Again, I was getting at the perspective of staff.  While it is great that they have been around for that long, Producers, and especially those two, are not necessarily who players interact with.  Perspective is both general, and I agree this would be influenced by the Producers being around, but is also specific to individual staff, which is more where I was going with the comment.

What is an example of something that you feel should be discussed more, but isn't?  If nothing else, I'm sure an answer for why this has changed could be provided (if it has changed).

It took my awhile to think through this.  Part of being a partner, to me, is having more of a parity in the conversation.  Staff have undertaken things over the years that have shifted the nature of the conversation so that they are more in control of it.  Gone is ISCA, communicating directly with a staff member via mud e-mail (or mudmail for that matter) without copying the main account, and APMs that have staff participation.  We still have the GDB (although one could argue the nature of the conversation here has also changed significantly over the years), the request tool, and some various other methods (facebook, twitter,?).  But overall, the conversation has shifted from bi-lateral to multi-lateral, and has in doing so lost the personal aspect.  There have been a number of benefits that have occurred due to this shift, that no doubt outweigh the loss, but it is a loss nonetheless.  This ties into what I was mentioning about staff perspective, I would guess there are staff on board who were not around for ISCA or even when more communication was via bi-lateral emails to a specific immortal's email, so they could potentially lack perspective on what that was like, and the benefits that were given up to move to the current dynamic.

Another aspect of that control is the more frequent use of statements like "We have discussed it and are not going in that direction."  These tend to stop a conversation, they also lend the impression that it doesn't matter what you say after that, nothing you say on the subject is going to be given consideration.  I can understand why it is necessary, I have certainly seen the same things come up here, again, and again, and again, and again.  But contrast this to "We have not seen any ideas that have convinced us to change direction."  Or something that gives the reasoning (as opposed to just reasons), which is certainly more personal.  My experience on another MUD years ago also leads me to believe that sharing reasoning is one of the critical ways that you change people's perspective on a game, and build players into staff, and staff into higher level staff.

You asked for an example though.  Let's use the current changes to housing that was announced.  Since then, I have seen a lot of opinions on the change posted.  I've seen a few ideas posted, I even posted one.  I saw the implementation of a vision and strategy posted (1 per region, racial limits).  I have seen something posted that hints at more (renovations).  I haven't seen the actual vision and strategy for housing posted, although I can back into part from the 1 per region obviously, can make some guesses from the racial limit change, and am murky on what else the renovations might be supporting.  I missed the discussion around that vision and strategy, if it took place here on the GDB.  That vision and strategy would be, I am guessing, at the level of "perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game".  I chose this example over others because it seemed to have a greater potential for being driven by OOC factors, rather than IC factors, and thus could have had the potential to be discussed at that level with players beforehand.

Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.

Why not?

A mishmash of policies and posts that perhaps I am not remembering correctly?  Let's remember how I went about this, when I did do it.  I wrote it all up (rooms, building layout and NPCs inhabiting it).  I wrote the argument for why I thought this would more accurately represent the world.  I sent it in.  I had a pretty specific idea about how having it look a certain way would help portray the squalor, multi-person living conditions I envisioned, which meant to me, at that time, doing the writing myself.

My understanding is that currently submissions are accepted via mastercraft submissions, or by answering a call in the Submissions forum, due to policies that have changed the dynamic to certain specific channels of submission that limit the scope of what can be submitted.  Mastercraft is more limited than my submission would fit into and the submission forum would require staff ask for it in the first place. 

Which would mean, if I wanted to do something like this, I would first have to post an idea on the GDB (or use the request tool, I guess).  I would have to get staff to agree that the idea was good enough to go in, and then convince staff that I should be the one to write it.  Seems more work to me (for me) than how I originally did it, which took two days (less than 4 hours altogether).  And frankly, a smaller chance of success.

If that is not the process that I would have to go through, please let me know, would be glad to hear it!

As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things.  Not public statements, but real discussion.  Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).

Feel free to ask and get involved!

Not actually sure how to take that.

...you're here...I'm here...you know where this is going.   That's right.  Real discussion.    

Basically, I just meant that communication is a two-way street--that if you wish for staff to discuss something, you can also open up the conversation.

Originally I meant in person conversation (note I mentioned APM and 10%).  This goes back to my thinking that some of the personal aspect of the conversation has been lost (I don't consider boards to be in any way personal, even if a "personality" is in evidence, so this may just be me), with more parity (RL conversations tend to have a more equal footing, breaking down dynamic that the power structure between staff and players creates, in my experience), and hopefully bi-lateral rather than multi-lateral.

[Nyr]

What is an example of something that you feel should be discussed more, but isn't?  If nothing else, I'm sure an answer for why this has changed could be provided (if it has changed).

It took my awhile to think through this.  Part of being a partner, to me, is having more of a parity in the conversation.  Staff have undertaken things over the years that have shifted the nature of the conversation so that they are more in control of it.  Gone is ISCA,

ISCA?  I understand what that means after asking Tiernan (bulletin board chat system at the university of Iowa), but what relevance does this have but nostalgia?  No one on staff is...there...anymore...at least as far as I know...and BBS code is ancient.  This isn't an example of shifting the conversation so that we are more in control of it, it's an example of technology moving forward.

communicating directly with a staff member via mud e-mail (or mudmail for that matter) without copying the main account,

You can still communicate directly via e-mail, but we advise you not to--not because we hate you or don't want to talk to you, but because your communication with staff needs to have accountability on all sides.  Again, more of an issue of having accountability, but also using technology when feasible to improve that.

and APMs that have staff participation

Maybe the big change there is that as staff have gotten older and developed little staff babies of their own (or other parts of their lives, such as careers/schooling/relationships/family/etc. stuff) they simply are less available for such things.  I know some of those are true for me.

But overall, the conversation has shifted from bi-lateral to multi-lateral, and has in doing so lost the personal aspect.  There have been a number of benefits that have occurred due to this shift, that no doubt outweigh the loss, but it is a loss nonetheless.  This ties into what I was mentioning about staff perspective, I would guess there are staff on board who were not around for ISCA or even when more communication was via bi-lateral emails to a specific immortal's email, so they could potentially lack perspective on what that was like, and the benefits that were given up to move to the current dynamic.

As you say, the benefits of our current system do outweigh the loss.  Multi-lateral communication births accountability and an actual required response, two things you don't get by e-mailing a staffer directly.

I played a sponsored role in the "b-lateral, totally personal staff-email days" and e-mailed a staff group.  Oftentimes I'd get no real replies and no real support.  Sometimes no acknowledgement of receipt.  I was happy playing the role and happy to keep going, but I am happy to see the days of "bi-lateral, totally personal staff e-mail" go away.  

Your request is there.  Every staffer can see it if you can see it.  It will not get lost.  It will still take time to resolve some things like it did before, but it's all in one place.  What it lacks in the ability to personally reach out and touch a staffer's staff e-mail address directly, it makes up for in "actually working."

Another aspect of that control is the more frequent use of statements like "We have discussed it and are not going in that direction."  These tend to stop a conversation, they also lend the impression that it doesn't matter what you say after that, nothing you say on the subject is going to be given consideration.  I can understand why it is necessary, I have certainly seen the same things come up here, again, and again, and again, and again.  But contrast this to "We have not seen any ideas that have convinced us to change direction."  Or something that gives the reasoning (as opposed to just reasons), which is certainly more personal.  My experience on another MUD years ago also leads me to believe that sharing reasoning is one of the critical ways that you change people's perspective on a game, and build players into staff, and staff into higher level staff.

Do you have a specific example of a case where knowing the "why" of staff reasoning would make this different?  Does the way "no" is phrased really matter that much?  If so and if you are looking for more answers, you could always ask.

You asked for an example though.  Let's use the current changes to housing that was announced.  Since then, I have seen a lot of opinions on the change posted.  I've seen a few ideas posted, I even posted one.  I saw the implementation of a vision and strategy posted (1 per region, racial limits).  I have seen something posted that hints at more (renovations).  I haven't seen the actual vision and strategy for housing posted, although I can back into part from the 1 per region obviously, can make some guesses from the racial limit change, and am murky on what else the renovations might be supporting.  I missed the discussion around that vision and strategy, if it took place here on the GDB.  That vision and strategy would be, I am guessing, at the level of "perspective of the gameworld, potential additions to the gameworld, or overall vision for aspects of the game".  I chose this example over others because it seemed to have a greater potential for being driven by OOC factors, rather than IC factors, and thus could have had the potential to be discussed at that level with players beforehand.

We don't discuss everything with players beforehand and we never have done that across the board.  

In this case it was a happy surprise that Adhira was putting in new apartments and the code that we've been using for years just didn't work properly.  I personally tried to fix it and failed.  Adhira fixed it after finding that some values did not save in the right spots.  It broke again after another crash.  We fixed it again.  It broke again after another crash.  Tiernan tackled looking both at the apartment code and the reason for the crashes.  Crashes fixed.  Apartment code adapted to prevent this data loss.  Then (since he was already in apartment code) he added functionality that extended apartment code, functionality that we (on staff) have wanted for years:  the ability for apartments to be restricted based on the OOC constraints of apartment space availability vs PCs.  (At present we think a "1 per region" restriction is perfect because it will free up apartment space for other PCs; at present there are 7 PCs renting a total of 15 apartments.)  He also threw in racial restrictions (if desired).  Like I mentioned when asked, I don't really have any plans to implement the latter in Tuluk at this time, but if I do, I'll give forewarning.  

If you have suggestions on how this should or could be implemented if/when it is, feel free to put up a thread discussing it.  I don't think a discussion was put up for this particular change because of the fact that it wasn't really a plan by either city-state admin (Welda or myself) and neither of us have this on our plates right now.  Yet.

There are plenty of examples of staff asking for feedback on changes--usually after they are going to go in, but the feedback is still requested.  You can also give feedback on changes without it being requested.

A mishmash of policies and posts that perhaps I am not remembering correctly?  Let's remember how I went about this, when I did do it.  I wrote it all up (rooms, building layout and NPCs inhabiting it).  I wrote the argument for why I thought this would more accurately represent the world.  I sent it in.  I had a pretty specific idea about how having it look a certain way would help portray the squalor, multi-person living conditions I envisioned, which meant to me, at that time, doing the writing myself.

My understanding is that currently submissions are accepted via mastercraft submissions, or by answering a call in the Submissions forum, due to policies that have changed the dynamic to certain specific channels of submission that limit the scope of what can be submitted.  Mastercraft is more limited than my submission would fit into and the submission forum would require staff ask for it in the first place.  

Which would mean, if I wanted to do something like this, I would first have to post an idea on the GDB (or use the request tool, I guess).  I would have to get staff to agree that the idea was good enough to go in, and then convince staff that I should be the one to write it.  Seems more work to me (for me) than how I originally did it, which took two days (less than 4 hours altogether).  And frankly, a smaller chance of success.

If that is not the process that I would have to go through, please let me know, would be glad to hear it!

You could just put in a request and do exactly the same thing.  And if staff says "no," that's still exactly what would've happened before if staff didn't think it worked.  It may have a smaller chance of success but that's probably more because your idea gets shown to all staffers at once, and requires a broader amount of support than "oh, I'll just talk to Amos on staff, we're bros, he'll do this and say it was his idea."  I'm not saying that's how your idea happened before, just that this is what that prevents: favoritism towards any given player.

Originally I meant in person conversation (note I mentioned APM and 10%).  This goes back to my thinking that some of the personal aspect of the conversation has been lost (I don't consider boards to be in any way personal, even if a "personality" is in evidence, so this may just be me), with more parity (RL conversations tend to have a more equal footing, breaking down dynamic that the power structure between staff and players creates, in my experience), and hopefully bi-lateral rather than multi-lateral.

From time to time, I'd love to hang out with some Arm players at an APM.  Real life does not afford me that luxury at this time.  When I can, I'd like to look at that.  The same tends to go for other staff.  We even did a Producer live chat player/staff meeting last year, which had a buttload of players that attended.  We can do another (especially now that we have our own Teamspeak server).  Those who can hang, should!

[Rahnevyn]

Today, it is unlikely I would undertake the work to send something like that in.

Why not?

A mishmash of policies and posts that perhaps I am not remembering correctly?  Let's remember how I went about this, when I did do it.  I wrote it all up (rooms, building layout and NPCs inhabiting it).  I wrote the argument for why I thought this would more accurately represent the world.  I sent it in.  I had a pretty specific idea about how having it look a certain way would help portray the squalor, multi-person living conditions I envisioned, which meant to me, at that time, doing the writing myself.

My understanding is that currently submissions are accepted via mastercraft submissions, or by answering a call in the Submissions forum, due to policies that have changed the dynamic to certain specific channels of submission that limit the scope of what can be submitted.  Mastercraft is more limited than my submission would fit into and the submission forum would require staff ask for it in the first place.  

Which would mean, if I wanted to do something like this, I would first have to post an idea on the GDB (or use the request tool, I guess).  I would have to get staff to agree that the idea was good enough to go in, and then convince staff that I should be the one to write it.  Seems more work to me (for me) than how I originally did it, which took two days (less than 4 hours altogether).  And frankly, a smaller chance of success.

If that is not the process that I would have to go through, please let me know, would be glad to hear it!

I think part of the reason this process exists is not for staff benefit, but actually to shield players from disappointment if they spend a lot their time and creative energy thinking up and writing something, and then staff say we won't, or can't, or don't have the time, to implement the idea. I would hate to see anyone, staffer or player, spend a lot of time thinking up something cool and awesome only to have it languish on a shelf; sadly, this already happens too often, and it can have a discouraging effect if it occurs too frequently. Time and creative energy are both precious resources when it comes to Armageddon, and so we want to try and maximize the usage of both to see returns on investment, which may mean not letting some projects start unless we're sure they fit into the game and we can finish them. Does that make sense?

[Twilight]

Thanks for fielding my questions/comments, I appreciate it.