mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Jun 28, 2024 8:58:10 GMT -5
I like how the thread turned from reducing staff labor, to satisfying the need for instant gratification through automating character approvals and custom crafts. I mean, these things are useful and add to the game. But it's very telling that players only really care about reducing inefficiencies in the staff team specifically to fulfill their requests, and the concern about staff burnout is either secondary, or simply fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by uncoolio on Jun 28, 2024 9:50:02 GMT -5
I thought it was a bizarre discussion. A mortal player, unprompted, makes a random thread to talk about "reducing staff labor"? I can't decide if it comes off as bootlicking for brown-nose points or weirdly rude to the staff. Imagine you're DMing for a D&D campaign, and out of nowhere, some of the players begin discussing what should be changed about the game in order to help you manage your time better. Not because you've asked, not because you're visibly struggling to keep things going, but because the players simply want to talk about how you should be doing your DMing job.
It's entirely possible that staff do in fact struggle to keep it together, but they haven't said so and (to my knowledge) certainly haven't asked the playerbase for advice about how to do their jobs. While it does appear that they're a little short-handed right now, it's exceedingly unlikely that speculative, unrequested advice from random players will yield a better solution than what staff themselves might decide to do. After all, it's their jobs. They're the only ones who are equipped to determine what, if anything, should change about their own work methods.
That thread came off as fishing for karma under the pretense of thoughtful, helpful concern. Or, as you suggest, trying to lobby for changes they want by pretending that they're solutions to problems. A good quarter of the playerbase write like elementary school students; what do you think happens to the overall quality of the game if there's no application review process and every stone-stupid smoothbrain can just pop into the game with whatever total trash they pass off as a description or character concept? Some 15-20% of character applications are rejected, according to the weekly reports. Without an application process, 15-20% of characters in the game would be too poorly written to meet even the currently low standards.
|
|
baron
Clueless newb
Posts: 119 
|
Post by baron on Jun 28, 2024 10:02:15 GMT -5
Someone with a working GDB account tell poor Halaster that Claude 3.5 is much better at reviewing and debugging code than ChatGPT. Like a magnitude better. Plus, the entire code base could easily fit into Claude's context.
|
|
Patuk
Shartist
Posts: 552
|
Post by Patuk on Jun 28, 2024 10:03:43 GMT -5
Claude is in fact the mad poet, but then that's pretty much what you have to be to make sense of the game's codebase anyhow.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Jun 28, 2024 11:32:30 GMT -5
It's entirely possible that staff do in fact struggle to keep it together, but they haven't said so and (to my knowledge) certainly haven't asked the playerbase for advice about how to do their jobs. While it does appear that they're a little short-handed right now, it's exceedingly unlikely that speculative, unrequested advice from random players will yield a better solution than what staff themselves might decide to do. After all, it's their jobs. They're the only ones who are equipped to determine what, if anything, should change about their own work methods. I think the players are looking at it the wrong way. They think long response times correlate to overwork which isn't necessarily true. Sometimes things just take a long time to handle. Sometimes things are low-priority tasks that are saved for when the workload is lighter overall. Sometimes things take a long chunk of time that's only available on the weekend, and can't be handled when the staffer is mixing work-from-home with staffing during the weekdays. Etc.
Producers are in a sort of management role, so it's the staff's job to tell their managers when they are overworked. The staff expect 10 hours/week from storytellers, which is a fairly standard expectation for leadership of a large hobby group. If staff feel like they can't do what they are supposed to do within that 10 hours/week timeframe, then they are technically overworked. Staff might not feel that they are overworked if they have more time to dedicate, which is fair. But that does mean that, in the event they decide to quit, they have to be replaced by someone who can match or exceed their time and efficiency. So "getting what you absolutely need to do in a week done in the time we expect" has to be the standard.
It used to be a part of staff process to regularly check in and say if you feel your workload is too big, too small, or just right, as well as how many hours you're willing to do in a week. Not sure what happened in the 10+ years since, but was a good idea then and would be a good idea now if it was in place. |
|
najdorf
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 265
|
Post by najdorf on Jun 29, 2024 0:16:53 GMT -5
staff is responding positively to the OP. in the past i could expect a "its our business shat we do, mind your own"
overall there is a great shift in attitude which is pre requisite for any mud to survive in 2024+
|
|
alleys
Clueless newb
Posts: 87
|
Post by alleys on Jun 29, 2024 20:40:15 GMT -5
Many people played this game more then they worked in their field. There is so much potential to ask people their ideas. Many may be useless considering players do not know the whole picture, nevertheless I think this is right way for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohmygravy on Jul 9, 2024 7:17:09 GMT -5
Someone with a working GDB account tell poor Halaster that Claude 3.5 is much better at reviewing and debugging code than ChatGPT. Like a magnitude better. Plus, the entire code base could easily fit into Claude's context. Fucking seriously. Chatgpt is pretty awful compared to when I started using it in 2023. Their focus has definitely not been what I want. Tried Claude for a python script idea that chatgpt couldn't fucking get right and Claude did it right literally first time. Immediately canceled my ChatGPT sub and subbed to claude's premium service. |
|
eugene
Clueless newb
Posts: 114
|
Post by eugene on Jul 9, 2024 8:40:02 GMT -5
ChatGPT? What the fuck is this, amateur hour?
Code it yourself or hire someone who can. Good Lord.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Jul 9, 2024 9:32:33 GMT -5
I approve of staff relying on LLMs to code the game, ideally without checking for errors before pushing to production.
It won't happen though -- Ursun's a professional programmer and IDK what Halaster does for a living but for all the shit I give him, he's not actually that bad at it. Multiple storytellers also have programming abilities that I imagine they will want to flex.
|
|
najdorf
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 265
|
Post by najdorf on Jul 9, 2024 9:59:57 GMT -5
if you know your test case and can debug good, code-pilot is much better and I'm not against usage of it. It improved our developers performance by at least 3x and I'm not joking. We made it mandatory on all, and delivery times on same amount of work has seriously gone 1/3
|
|
baron
Clueless newb
Posts: 119
|
Post by baron on Jul 9, 2024 19:49:42 GMT -5
Claude is better, presently, than GPT-4 at coding tasks.
Regardless, as najdorf suggests, AI models don't replace developers. AI models augment developers. You generally still need to know wtf you're doing to make good use of an LLM-powered helper (like co-pilot).
|
|
najdorf
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 265
|
Post by najdorf on Jul 10, 2024 4:21:05 GMT -5
funny how developers use AI in even at specs phase, previously they'd spend 40% of time trying to understand business requirements cause it always included logical fallacies.
A particuar IT guy at our team was extremely slow in dealing with those. I'v seen his co-pilot queries lately, he was basically pasting the whole requirement that is 2 3 pages, asking co-pilot to summarize and clarify points as AI understood it. Then he was pasting it back to business saying is this what you meant? 2-3 back and forths and it often turned out that AI's suggested questions to business team immediately pointed out those logic errors, which bashed and sent business back to re-think
|
|
|
|
Post by ohmygravy on Jul 10, 2024 5:48:32 GMT -5
ChatGPT? What the fuck is this, amateur hour? Code it yourself or hire someone who can. Good Lord. I have mixed opinions on llms, currently. Too many "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese - NOW WITH AI!" type nonsense. But a lot of the time at my job it can save me like 30-70% of the effort. You have to know what you're doing, obviously, because no model is perfect but I'm not a C coder, as a for-instance, and ChatGPT figured out why I couldn't get armSolo to compile after I uploaded it. That's pretty cool, honestly. |
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Jul 10, 2024 6:54:45 GMT -5
Since this thread is about an inactive GDB thread about reducing staff labor...
If used correctly, an LLM might reduce coding-related labor but it won't effectively reduce the biggest tasks staff actually work on: requests and building. To some extent you could leave building to an LLM then have a human revise the output, but you'd still end up with samey descriptions everywhere -- not that Armageddon doesn't already struggle with this.
Requests are the #1 staff time-taker and you just can't have an LLM reply to those. As funny as it would be for a staff member to copy/paste a character report into ChatGPT and ask it to respond, it just wouldn't have the context required to do so. The game constantly has about 100 open requests at any give time, both pre- and post-seasons.
The real solution to reducing staff labor is for players to be less needy, less presumptive, and more self-reliant. The amount of frivolous requests and unsolicited submissions and ideas that go to staff over the years is one of the few things that make me feel sorry for staff. If you think the ideas posted on the GDB are stupid, imagine being a staff member in 2023 reading all of the "this is how you get players to trust the staff, trust me bro" requests.
|
|
