The new karma system

[Dresan]

I don't dislike it the new 10 point system in particular moving the magick subclasses to special applications.

The only thing I don't like is karma 0 to 1. I know this was mentioned before and unsure if it was put in place but going from karma level 0 to 1 should be an automated coded system which can be corrected if staff noticed a serious issue. This should not require staff intervention otherwise.

I do see need to prevent newbies from playing the various races which are vastly different from other games. However, historically the karma system is not friendly to anyone who isn't willing seek staff approval and 'friendship'. Its really a 'do I like this person/character' type system and which has bred nothing but favoritism and elitism in the past.

Again, I will admit its a necessary evil though since I can't come up with a better solution to karma, but at least at the very bottom of the pile [0-1] should not be left to human decision either on staff or player-side.

[flurry]

Maybe this was already answered somewhere and I missed it, but after the automatic conversion to the new system, which karma criteria are considered to be satisfied and which unsatisfied? For example, everyone with 2 karma was converted to 4 karma in the new system. Which 4 criteria for those players? Which 6 criteria for the formerly 3-karma players? I assume it can't be different for each player within a karma level, since that wouldn't be an automated conversion.

I understand we can all request a review but is that necessary if someone just wants to know which criteria they're considered to have met?

[Halaster]

Maybe this was already answered somewhere and I missed it, but after the automatic conversion to the new system, which karma criteria are considered to be satisfied and which unsatisfied? For example, everyone with 2 karma was converted to 4 karma in the new system. Which 4 criteria for those players? Which 6 criteria for the formerly 3-karma players? I assume it can't be different for each player within a karma level, since that wouldn't be an automated conversion.

I understand we can all request a review but is that necessary if someone just wants to know which criteria they're considered to have met?

Whenever someone is granted karma, there's always a 'reason' given.  So it reads something like:
Halaster set account flurry to 2 karma, 1 for longevity, 1 for magick, 1 for culture

So we have the previous criteria already recorded in 95%+ of cases.

[flurry]

That makes sense, thanks.

[Dresan]

If you played long enough, and happened to be in a prime number with karma[3,5] you got boosted thanks to the first conversion. Good times.

[Delusion]

What's the purpose of karma? It's like it's there because it's always been there.

A normal approach for any roleplaying game is for a player to ask the GM if they can play a role. If it suits the game, the GM can say yes. If that was the existing rule instead of having karma, what argument would you make to introduce karma instead? If it didn't already exist, if a GM came and said they wanted a rule for playing wizards and giants in their world with giant insects in it, where GMs rate the quality of players, give them a number saying how good or bad they are, and tell them to wait longer than it would take to go through college to get a good number, their players would probably tell them to touch grass.

I realize Armageddon exists in this void where it's often run like nobody has any life outside the game. It's weird and it's a problem. Karma's only part of it but scrapping it would be a start.

I don't even play karma roles despite having had points so this isn't personal.

[Kavrick]

Removing options from new players is another kick in the teeth to the already bad new player experience armageddon has. Sometimes it really does just feel like game design decisions for this mud only exist to keep around old players than it does to try and get new players. This might seem like an extreme opinion but it echoes back to something someone said in another thread about not ever wanting to move away from the 'old' parts of the game.

I also do think the new system is fraught with the opportunity for nepotism. This isn't a slight towards the current staff, but I don't really trust any humans anywhere to not engage in nepotism, I don't think there's a single power structure in the world without it.

However, historically the karma system is not friendly to anyone who isn't willing seek staff approval and 'friendship'. Its really a 'do I like this person/character' type system and which has bred nothing but favoritism and elitism in the past.

Editing this in because I didn't realize that someone else basically pointed out the same thing. I'm personally aware of people who've been the subject of staff favoritism in the past and it's hard to not worry about it. It's not really news to anyone that I'm not really a 'yes man' or anything like that, I like to think I give credit to where it's due when it comes to staff but I don't think anyone should benefit from befriending staff, or attempting to do so.

[shadeoux]

Speaking of, can we get something someplace that shows your maximum karma of said account. Perhaps here, or in the mud itself?

[Valkyrja]

What's the purpose of karma? It's like it's there because it's always been there.

I'm sure Hal has a more thorough response for "why does karma exist", but here are some things that are useful about it:
1. Staff turnover means that we have a record of a player that carries over, karma being the primary measurement of trust afforded a player. Have there been players who were awarded karma that didn't "deserve" it? Yes. It's as good as any other system run by humans.
2. Classes/player options are not "balanced" as they are in tabletop games, intentionally so. They also have a much larger impact on the game, sometimes negatively, if played by someone who has not demonstrated their trustworthiness. Can a high karma player mess up? Yes. It's just less likely and helps preserve the fun factor in the game for others if they aren't getting stomped by high karma PCs all the time (unnecessarily).

e.g. some high karma options have the ability to kill a room of 10 PCs before staff even realize it's happening. We want everyone who plays the game to enjoy a nice balance of oppression in their roleplay, not just a death simulator where you get PK'd constantly. It's a difficult balance to strike with allowing scary karma options the right to be scary, but one we always try to make. Karma is part of the equation for regulation of that balance.

[Halaster]

What's the purpose of karma?

This is from the new announcement I put in Staff Announcements, which I actually just copied from help karma.

ArmageddonMUD operates a Karma system designed to open up the more complicated, powerful and RP challenging roles to players. Karma is simply a measure of trust that the staff members have in a given player's:

- Degree of maturity and responsibility as a role-player, as evidenced by playing roles realistically and acting responsibly with the code.
- Knowledge of the game world, and an appreciation of the way in which the various races, guilds, and so on, interact.
- Role-playing skill, as evidenced by role-playing in such a way as to show that they are really involved in the game world, and also enriching the game world for other players.

[Dresan]

The staff keeps using the word trustworthiness but that is not the reality of what this system is or how will be viewed.

Some of the class/race changes people have been able to play since before the copper wars have been moved up. Was this done because people were sudden untrustworthy or not knowledge enough to play them? No, it was done to limit how many people play them. Honestly, if you can play one mage without murdering a bunch of people, you are likely to the same with any other mage you play. Ultimately, the karma system has and will continue to breeds favoritism since giving/removing karma is based on opinion from some random staff member.

Again,  I fully admit its a necessary evil and I myself don't have a better solution to offer, but lets keep in mind this system has caused a lot of problems and does indeed tend to shit on both new players and the players that aren't chatting up current and potential future staff members in in discord.

Finally, at some point the staff will need to come up with a better way to split trustworthiness/knowledge with the ability to fairly limit what people can play and when. If we had actually kept and balanced out the karma regeneration system we have before, I think the previous system three tiered system would have cut a much better balance, but I know there was a lot of complaining from certain people, some who are probably now banned, about not being able to play the powerful classes they wanted, whenever they wanted. Well with this system they now can right, just sucks for the people who aren't part of those groups I guess.

[Windstorm]

I don't really like the idea of karma in general, and in general most of the players here are mostly knowledgable enough in terms of the world to be trusted to play what they want to play. If they want to be disruptors there are enough ways to do that even without magick or super-powerful roles of that nature anyway.

If you're a dwarf or even a human with high strength and a couple of clubs and you attack someone who is unarmed and writing an emote you can be nearly the same speed of lethal that a magicker can. In many cases, probably even faster - and that's not even getting into muls or giants or even just elves with backstab. I don't really view all that to be a good thing, and it also at least somewhat underscores my own general thought that magick (whether subguilds or otherwise) being "overpowered" has been a line of thought that itself has been more than a little overblown and over-corrected against.

It's not just magick but everything that is super lethal, definitely including to magickers themselves, and it's all a little too fast here for my own personal liking even to a point where it actually harms roleplay, in my opinion.

That said, I don't think that sort of stuff is even why all of it's being gated necessarily. There's been some tales of a rash of PCs being made in roughly the same image with roughly the same goals and means that were occurring over and over again for a period and I'll admit that even I was pretty eyerolly over it.

If a general karma reduction reduces that sort of thing I'll be personally glad for it and I definitely see not only the necessity but the general framework of it being something people are used to and not sure how to think of the game without. But it does remain a somewhat hamfisted system with a lot of flaws in it and I genuinely believe there are better ideas that, if they're not being considered already, should be.

But is it an okay band-aid for right now? Sure. For now.

[Kavrick]

On the back of what windstorm said, funnily enough the higher rp a character is, the less roleplay I've seen from them. In my entire year of playing Armageddon I haven't seen a single ounce of magickal roleplay, but I have been wordlessly attacked by mages in the past. I don't really know what staff thinks 'playing responsibly' is when any time I've made a player complaint about a pk attempt without a single emote, follow up, warning or apparent motive towards me just to get a response with 'It's allowed' or 'there was rp, you just didn't see it'. Armageddon weirdly enough, despite being a RPI, has some of the lowest standard for PK RP i've ever seen in a multiplayer roleplaying game, and that's including plenty that aren't even permadeath.

So yeah I actually have zero clue on what responsibility is expected of people who play high karma characters.

[Usiku]

What's the purpose of karma? It's like it's there because it's always been there.

A normal approach for any roleplaying game is for a player to ask the GM if they can play a role. If it suits the game, the GM can say yes. If that was the existing rule instead of having karma, what argument would you make to introduce karma instead? If it didn't already exist, if a GM came and said they wanted a rule for playing wizards and giants in their world with giant insects in it, where GMs rate the quality of players, give them a number saying how good or bad they are, and tell them to wait longer than it would take to go through college to get a good number, their players would probably tell them to touch grass.

I realize Armageddon exists in this void where it's often run like nobody has any life outside the game. It's weird and it's a problem. Karma's only part of it but scrapping it would be a start.

I don't even play karma roles despite having had points so this isn't personal.

GMs aren't running games where they are overseeing potentially hundreds of different players all interacting in the same, always on, world where they are doing things and taking actions that can impact the game and other players substantially while the GM is in bed or looking the other way.

This is not a tabletop game. While there are some similarities, the dynamics are very different unfortunately. Perhaps there is a better solution, but we haven't thought of it yet.

[Halaster]

Karma has been the 'necessary evil' for like 25-30 years.  And I agree it's not ideal, but it's the best we've come up with to date.  It's the least-bad option presented so far.

[Bogre]

e.g. some high karma options have the ability to kill a room of 10 PCs before staff even realize it's happening. We want everyone who plays the game to enjoy a nice balance of oppression in their roleplay, not just a death simulator where you get PK'd constantly. It's a difficult balance to strike with allowing scary karma options the right to be scary, but one we always try to make. Karma is part of the equation for regulation of that balance.

In my experience, it's the non-karma oppression through crime code, clan code or stealth code abuse that really causes a problem. And that tends to be much less regulated than someone's access to playing a krathi, or whatever.

[Armaddict]

What's the purpose of karma? It's like it's there because it's always been there.

A normal approach for any roleplaying game is for a player to ask the GM if they can play a role. If it suits the game, the GM can say yes. If that was the existing rule instead of having karma, what argument would you make to introduce karma instead? If it didn't already exist, if a GM came and said they wanted a rule for playing wizards and giants in their world with giant insects in it, where GMs rate the quality of players, give them a number saying how good or bad they are, and tell them to wait longer than it would take to go through college to get a good number, their players would probably tell them to touch grass.

I realize Armageddon exists in this void where it's often run like nobody has any life outside the game. It's weird and it's a problem. Karma's only part of it but scrapping it would be a start.

I don't even play karma roles despite having had points so this isn't personal.

I just wanted to say here, because it's relevant; in ye olden days, there was still Karma, but there was a LOT of leeway with special applications.  You could apply for really strange roles, custom skillsets, and all manner of things.  Special applications were common, and your 'actual karma value' was not a major hurdle in playing what you want to.

There's description here of the special application process, but at some point players became very averse to the idea of special applications outside of rolecalls.  Please keep in mind that these are not bad things.  If you'd like to play something else, don't assume that you just all out can't because of karma.  Use special applications, they're exactly what you're describing here where you just ask a 'DM' to play something.

[dumbstruck]

What's the purpose of karma? It's like it's there because it's always been there.

A normal approach for any roleplaying game is for a player to ask the GM if they can play a role. If it suits the game, the GM can say yes. If that was the existing rule instead of having karma, what argument would you make to introduce karma instead? If it didn't already exist, if a GM came and said they wanted a rule for playing wizards and giants in their world with giant insects in it, where GMs rate the quality of players, give them a number saying how good or bad they are, and tell them to wait longer than it would take to go through college to get a good number, their players would probably tell them to touch grass.

I realize Armageddon exists in this void where it's often run like nobody has any life outside the game. It's weird and it's a problem. Karma's only part of it but scrapping it would be a start.

I don't even play karma roles despite having had points so this isn't personal.

I just wanted to say here, because it's relevant; in ye olden days, there was still Karma, but there was a LOT of leeway with special applications.  You could apply for really strange roles, custom skillsets, and all manner of things.  Special applications were common, and your 'actual karma value' was not a major hurdle in playing what you want to.

There's description here of the special application process, but at some point players became very averse to the idea of special applications outside of rolecalls.  Please keep in mind that these are not bad things.  If you'd like to play something else, don't assume that you just all out can't because of karma.  Use special applications, they're exactly what you're describing here where you just ask a 'DM' to play something.

You're also referring to a world/time where people had first 12 special apps a year (no more than one a month!) then around 2010, 3 special apps a year, now 2 special apps a year. So you're conflating this with when people had literally 600% of the special apps per year compared to now, so even with the same player numbers and people special app'ing 'literally as fast as humanly possible', you will see a 500% DECREASE of special apps sheerly by the numbers of what players are allowed annually. It is not fear to special app, it is availability of the option, which has curtailed those numbers.

[mansa]

...
You're also referring to a world/time where people had first 12 special apps a year (no more than one a month!) then around 2010, 3 special apps a year, now 2 special apps a year. So you're conflating this with when people had literally 600% of the special apps per year compared to now, so even with the same player numbers and people special app'ing 'literally as fast as humanly possible', you will see a 500% DECREASE of special apps sheerly by the numbers of what players are allowed annually. It is not fear to special app, it is availability of the option, which has curtailed those numbers.

I was curious about this, and I found this post:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33596.msg412036.html#msg412036

Which basically said 10% of the people who applied for special applications applied for 30% of all special applications.  It was changed because a small section of the population was producing most of the work for staff.  Most people applied for 3 or less special applications.

[dumbstruck]

...
You're also referring to a world/time where people had first 12 special apps a year (no more than one a month!) then around 2010, 3 special apps a year, now 2 special apps a year. So you're conflating this with when people had literally 600% of the special apps per year compared to now, so even with the same player numbers and people special app'ing 'literally as fast as humanly possible', you will see a 500% DECREASE of special apps sheerly by the numbers of what players are allowed annually. It is not fear to special app, it is availability of the option, which has curtailed those numbers.

I was curious about this, and I found this post:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33596.msg412036.html#msg412036

Which basically said 10% of the people who applied for special applications applied for 30% of all special applications.  It was changed because a small section of the population was producing most of the work for staff.  Most people applied for 3 or less special applications.

Yep. And 10% of the playerbase cut down what everyone else could play by 500%, rather than staff just talking to the people who caused it to be an issue, they removed 80% of access for 100% of the players.

Sucks when it ripples still, no?

Could have just talked to those people or flagged their accounts as no more than one every 3 months or whatever and fixed it, but instead, no one gets access.

[Dresan]

Karma has been the 'necessary evil' for like 25-30 years.  And I agree it's not ideal, but it's the best we've come up with to date.  It's the least-bad option presented so far.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

To be perfectly clear though, this is not staff's fault, but rather an issue with the entire community.

Again, the three tiered karma system was probably the first attempt to deal with the problems of karma while allowing people to play the classes more fairly. However, it is a very a very difficult system to balance out properly with every class and option potentially needing its own timer.  Unfortunately, as a community we saw complaints slowly whittle the karma regeneration portion of that system causing it to be unable to limit the high powered roles properly. We saw arguments from 'trustworthy' people who felt they should be allowed to play high powered roles over and over, and mentioned how they would stop playing for months until karma regenerated again so they could play those high powered roles constantly, many of those trustworthy people now gone or banned though.

During all this time many of us said nothing. Even myself haven't really bothered with it, despite this issue having significant impact on the game. Since it doesn't effect me I've often find myself ignoring it or glossing over the threads. I almost didn't even post anything this time either while celebrating the new elf red desert road. 

It is what it is, but I think we as a community we should just take note of it and discuss the system again after a season or so. I do believe that overtime this system does become a slow acting poison to the overall game so it will need to be address at some point.

[Patuk]

Upending entire systems because 10% of people (or less, really, since that's just 10% of people who bother specapping) did a thing is the entire theme of this thread.

[Armaddict]

You're also referring to a world/time where people had first 12 special apps a year (no more than one a month!) then around 2010, 3 special apps a year, now 2 special apps a year. So you're conflating this with when people had literally 600% of the special apps per year compared to now, so even with the same player numbers and people special app'ing 'literally as fast as humanly possible', you will see a 500% DECREASE of special apps sheerly by the numbers of what players are allowed annually. It is not fear to special app, it is availability of the option, which has curtailed those numbers.

In response to:

There's description here of the special application process, but at some point players became very averse to the idea of special applications outside of rolecalls.  Please keep in mind that these are not bad things.  If you'd like to play something else, don't assume that you just all out can't because of karma.  Use special applications, they're exactly what you're describing here where you just ask a 'DM' to play something.

I'm not sure what you're responding to.  I said to be sure to use special applications and not feel like something was beyond you just because it required a special application.  I didn't do the conflation here.

Edited, because I'm probably coming off like I'm picking a fight:
What I'm trying to say is that special applications became a thing that no one wanted to use.  We made a change to karma that broadened its access (by that I mean every point opened up a ton of options), and that is being drawn back to each point being more limited in what it grants, but also allows the special application to grant similar access to before.  So use it.  If it's something where there's a consistent trend of people running out of special applications, that can be addressed.   But right now it looks like they're trying to handle specific things regarding karma changes, and we need to use the system in place to the fullest.  So when someone is worried about access, be sure to use your special applications, so that this can be assessed.

This is not me saying everything is all hunky dory, because I don't think everything was all hunky dory with what we've just shifted away from, either.  This is a more complicated game problem than just reward and punishment, or access or non-access, or availability, or what populations are possible.  It's one system to try and mix all concerns of that nature, which means it will be naturally flawed from the get-go because of all the different use cases it has to cover.  But we have not found any good way to address all of those things in any other way, and more often than not, have different groups of people holding firm on different stances instead of suggesting viable alternatives that address all of those concerns.

So...my statement was to make sure that the tools that ARE here are used.  Use them well.  With this backwards shift, we'll need to use the previous system of special applications whenever possible for roles we want that are currently beyond our reach.  At the very least, it means we know we're going after a role that may be rejected, instead of having the idea that because it's not a special application, we should never be turned down for any one of those concerns.
I'm not sure what you're responding to.  I said to be sure to use special applications and not feel like something was beyond you just because it required a special application.  I didn't do the conflation here.

[dumbstruck]

You're not coming off as confrontational. I hope I'm not either. I was merely trying to point out that the lack of special apps is due to policy changes over the years that has literally made them much more scarce as even a possibility, so yes it's a tool, but it's been whittled down so much and limited so much just in the years that I've played it's a much rarer and scarcer tool with seemingly less potency as well (given the discussion of special apps for whole skill sets, stuff like Raesanos werekank, etc etc etc) in the latitude it even /can/ grant players, and it makes me sad.

[Windstorm]

Replacing Karma with Simplicity:

I would delete karma, replacing it with an on/off switch (every player is either a "trusted/experienced player" or not), change special apps into a process called "Rare Roles", and then simplify the process.

These would be sectioned off into Rare Roles:
Half-Giants
Muls
Magickers, or at least the (X number of) most popular ones in particular (example: Ruk Empowerment)
Sorcerers
Psis
Templars
Nobles

ALL roles just go through the regular application process, but selecting a Rare Role while doing your app brings up a prompt that these require approval. This prompt would make it clear that these roles are considered rare for a reason and that being declined likely means that the game just has or has had too much of a particular role in it recently.

Players should also not expect to play Rare Roles often. They are called that for a reason; not every role you play will be rare or they will not be rare anymore.

Requesting Approval for a Rare Role:
1. You list the race+guild+subguild you want to play.
2. You list the region they would play in.
3. You list the general personality or role they're being envisioned for in game, no more than 2 sentences long, but it could be and almost should be preferred to be a few words, IE "Allanaki loyalist" "Renegade rebel" "Cave-bound hermit" "Whiran in denial" "Half-Giant Prostitute"

Giving Approval for a Rare Role:
1. Has the player been approved for and begun play with a different Rare Role within the last (X) months? If yes, declined.
2. Does the player have recent notes relating to power abuse or overuse? If yes, declined.
3. Does this player have a repetition of similar roles that this one would fit into within the past (X) months? If yes, declined.
4. Are there or have there been more of this Rare Role active than is properly representing the world population? If yes, declined.

Otherwise, approved.

The goal on both ends is that this should take less than 5-10 minutes both to request a Rare Role and to approve one. No more writing a description or a background until it's already determined that the world could use this Rare Role in it. No more getting your hopes up, no more weeks-long response time, no more need to go through a laundry list of documented checks for every individual player. They're either trusted or not and have either played a Rare Role recently or not.

Note: this was off the top of my head and took me a handful of minutes to write. Don't expect perfection, it's at best a lazy first draft.