ibusoe
Clueless newb
Posts: 176 
|
Post by ibusoe on Aug 21, 2017 17:47:17 GMT -5
Sometimes a project fails because the team gives up on it. Other times a project fails due to catastrophe. And still other times, a project fails simply because the initial plan was terribly bad, was poorly designed.
This is essentially what's happened with Armageddon. If you view the other complaint threads, I see a lot of people diagnosing issues with the game and definitely a lot of people are listing symptoms, but I would like to present what I believe is the actual problem with the MUD - the entire process was poorly designed. Or more likely, given that the principals were teen agers boot-strapping a DIY project sans budget, the overall process wasn't designed at all. In either case, the overall goals of the project were completely doomed from it's inception, absent some sort of panacea intervention or a miracle. By the time that I've stopped playing, the miracle certainly hadn't happened.
For starters, let's try to define what the initial mission statement might have been, assuming that the mission statement weren't simply developed de jur and were written in blue collar English. Here is my best attempt:
Armageddon MUD will be a game where players can explore the world of Athas, change the game world, loot each other
extensively, grief, brawl and PK in an environment where roleplaying is the norm and there is very little metagaming.
I think they pretty much completely failed. I'm tempted to pull some punches here, because some of the people reading this will be friends of mine. I definitely think of Sanvean, Raesanos, Morgenes and Nyr as friends, so I don't want to take a dump on their creative effort. To me, they succeeded at making a game that was often fun to play. Often it wasn't, but I can't pin those particular problems on my buds.
But we're here to read about failure. Armageddon's goals were never realistic pursuant to the set of ingredients that and resources that the initial staff brought into the game. Puzzlingly, these issues seemed never to have been corrected and diagnosed.
Most of all it seems that the Armageddon staff were emotionally ill-equipped to run the style of game that they themselves wanted to play, but seemed not to know this. Time and again in this article, I will demonstrate that empathy is where the staff loused up. And this too is puzzling, given that if you reexamine the list of persons I've identified above, the first three are among the most personable persons (pun intentional) to have been on staff. And yet, their initial plan was terrible.
So if you accept that I've done a passable job with their mission statement, I am ready to make clear why the team never had a snowball's chance at realizing their dream.
Let's first look at the word 'exploring' that I've used in their mission statement, and it will become immediately clear that this isn't how the game is run. Players are actively discouraged from using their game character as an avatar to poke at the remotest regions of the game board. But the staff are up front about this. While their enforcement of this particular policy is often lax, I can't look at this particular decision and prima facia label it a policy failure. I'm not convinced that it is. Staff rationale is probably that they prefer characters socializing around two or three zones of congregation, rather than getting lost and eaten by code problems out in the hinterlands. I'd run things differently, but then I have a different set of values from the staff.
Next let's examine the decision to make the game permadeath. Permadeath isn't really conducive to an environment where there is a lot of PKing. It's what many of us claim to want. Indeed, personally I can never get that into a game that doesn't feature permadeath. So let's perhaps forgive the decision that the staff wanted a high-PK, permadeath environment so that I can get to my first point. If you were going to make a game not just permadeath, but intense permadeath you would almost certainly lower role-play requirements so that people can proceed to the brawl that now everyone clearly wants, or else prepare to spend a lot of time mediating player disputes. Now this is where I can concretely say that the staff have failed. They always seem annoyed to mediate player disputes, in a game where they expect us to role play creatively, avoid metagaming and to try to murder each other's avatars. We're not really supposed to be talking to each other or bonding out of game, yet dispute resolution is sort of just supposed to happen. This is failure, and it is a failure related to managerial competence.
Next let me demonstrate that they didn't have the mettle necessary to create a game that didn't invite metagaming. The staff made a game that invited a lot of metagaming. The reason why there was a lot of metagaming is because of the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' in the game. I can say with zero pride that yes, I am amongst the players that was forwarded a copy of the map that we all deny having. I viewed the map. And despite my regrets, it's probably a good idea that I did because without that map I'd not have gotten anywhere. I never figured out the spell system, etc. And because I never cheated at the spell system, I never got anywhere with it. Am I tacitly accusing everyone who was successful at playing a mage as cheaters? No, plenty of people probably found success based upon talent. My point, rather is that people are tempted to cheat because the game is difficult to learn, competition is intense, the slope of ascendancy is steep and the price of failure harsh. I'm not complaining about any of those difficulties, because they were in part my attraction to the game. Rather, I want to make plain that if the staff intended to design a game this way, it was going to invite lots and lots of cheating. Perhaps metagaming should have been tolerated given the competitive nature of the game atmosphere.
Also, the staff are too conservative to run a game where players are encouraged to change the game world. They should come to peace with this.
I'll through my last two points quicker, namely that the staff isn't fit to run a game that centers around theft and corruption. With theft the staff seem to really hate thieves. I mean, they hate the people whom play thieves, but probably also they hate thieves in real life. I get the feeling that the staff are probably the sort of people whom like mafia movies, but they would probably piss themselves if somebody stole the hub caps off of their cars. Really, I don't think any of them have shop-lifted as teenagers, which makes me question why they would feel qualified to run a game where theft is one of the central themes.
With corruption I think they go too far in the opposite direction. Namely, I think that they would really like to manage a game populated with corrupt characters if they knew how to do so. They do not know how to do this. I do not believe they understand the way that corruption works. Templars, while generally well role-played, function more as brigands than they do as grifters or sycophants.
It is these five problems that sire the rest of the problems of the game. Problems associated with favoritism, the clan system, racial role-play and the GDB, etc. all stem from the fact that the staff have not cultivated the level of empathy needed to convince creative, articulate adults in any number to spend 10+ hours per week leveling characters so that we can play guard duty to some VIPs during an HRPT.
The game was never going to work. Any of the people working on replacer games should consider if they will do better along these lines, or if they should reformulate their game whilst it will still be easy to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 18:01:59 GMT -5
Allow me to retort.
I think Armageddon has probably had no less than a different mission statement every three to six years, depending on the tenure of various admins. I am not so clear on the entire timeline, but I think its safe to put major waypoints somewhere in the ballpark of 1994, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2014, and this year. There might be smaller subdivisions that make sense to the informed, but my point is that Armageddon is not the same game as opened, or even what Halaster was running in 2006.
My perception of the core problem is well documented on this board, and boils down to the failure of appealing to one or two bartle types of players.
I think the programmer investment to maintain a mud should not be downplayed. I've seen a couple muds with strong admins fail to run a rotting, unchanging heap successfully. Arm has had some productive talent involved, even if they have not gone in the direction I would have.
I dont think we could agree on the proper successor to Arm, between us. I am not sure one programmer can write one mud that appeals to everyone. Do you think it could be done?
|
|
OT
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 257
|
Post by OT on Aug 22, 2017 5:10:47 GMT -5
I think Armageddon is more than what can really be called a project. It has been running since 1992 or something and has existed more or less in its current form for almost twenty years. It wasn't started with the intention of being what it became, that just sort of developed over time. In many ways, it more resembles something like a traditional hippie commune (not meant in any derogatory way) where people join piecemeal over time, and as the years go by, the leadership changes from being simply the people with their names on the property's lease to actual overseers of the growing community. This is often how cults develop, and while Armageddon isn't a literal cult, it operates in many of the same ways, complete with an eventual breakdown of the group's unison and a splitting-off of alienated segments.
Armageddon worked reasonably well for a large number of years. While there have always been shortcomings, the real dysfunctionality didn't emerge until approximately ten years ago. This was when some of the game's veteran visionaries like Sanvean and Halaster began to depart and were replaced by people who had only ever known the game when it had already settled and lacked an appreciation for what had grown over time. Prior to this, Arm was a much more malleable thing whose curators had a nurturing attitude toward its direction. Many of the later administrators seemed to approach it with a mindset more like "what can I do to permanently inscribe my name onto this plaque?" rather than "what's the best thing for this game and how can it be accomplished?"
Things like permadeath always carry certain side-effects like player disputes. It's like how refereeing in sports always comes with complaints about injustice. That doesn't mean it's a flawed feature, just that it comes with a portion of conflict outside of the game. The problem only occurs when those in charge of mediating it fail to do so correctly because they don't care enough about the game's well-being to make the right decisions. That's what has been at the root of Armageddon's problems in the last decade. People who are bad leaders have risen to leadership, leading previously functional features of the game to become dysfunctional because they can't approach it in the right way.
I don't think the problems stem from in-game features that don't work (although some features that don't work have entered the game as a result of the problems). It's simply the fact that people without respect for the game and its playerbase have come to be in charge of the game and its playerbase, and have shaped the staffing structure to ensure that the problems they brought will persist even after their departure. Individuals with power complexes and bullying personalities got hold of the reins and restructured the administration to best suit their goal of controlling everything with a hysterical iron fist, and even if more well-meaning staff replace them, the problems persist when they continue to run the game by the new rules. They need to stop trying to be the strict cost-cutting boss and go back to being the passionate dungeon masters that once curated this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by gloryhound on Aug 22, 2017 6:20:38 GMT -5
This was when some of the game's veteran visionaries like Sanvean and Halaster began to depart and were replaced by people who had only ever known the game when it had already settled and lacked an appreciation for what had grown over time. Let's not give credit where credit is not due. Sanvean was no visionary. She did damp down some of the excessive hostility that the staff would display toward the players in the early years. But she also did a huge amount of damage. She was the one who announced Arm 2.0, and was at the top level of administration then so bears full responsibility for that utter fiasco. She brought in the crafting system, which totally altered the flavor of the game by removing the desperation for coin to pay for food and water. She stood by the policy decision not to respond to player requests for building (e.g. houses, halls, wagons etc.). I expect few here even remember they could ask to have a house made once upon a time. Visibility is not the same as accomplishment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 6:38:46 GMT -5
This was when some of the game's veteran visionaries like Sanvean and Halaster began to depart and were replaced by people who had only ever known the game when it had already settled and lacked an appreciation for what had grown over time. Let's not give credit where credit is not due. Sanvean was no visionary. She did damp down some of the excessive hostility that the staff would display toward the players in the early years. But she also did a huge amount of damage. She was the one who announced Arm 2.0, and was at the top level of administration then so bears full responsibility for that utter fiasco. She brought in the crafting system, which totally altered the flavor of the game by removing the desperation for coin to pay for food and water. She stood by the policy decision not to respond to player requests for building (e.g. houses, halls, wagons etc.). I expect few here even remember they could ask to have a house made once upon a time. Visibility is not the same as accomplishment. I'm curious. Are you saying that the perfect outcome would be the game returning to a 2003-2006 state? |
|
OT
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 257
|
Post by OT on Aug 22, 2017 8:34:45 GMT -5
This was when some of the game's veteran visionaries like Sanvean and Halaster began to depart and were replaced by people who had only ever known the game when it had already settled and lacked an appreciation for what had grown over time. Let's not give credit where credit is not due. Sanvean was no visionary. She did damp down some of the excessive hostility that the staff would display toward the players in the early years. But she also did a huge amount of damage. She was the one who announced Arm 2.0, and was at the top level of administration then so bears full responsibility for that utter fiasco. She brought in the crafting system, which totally altered the flavor of the game by removing the desperation for coin to pay for food and water. She stood by the policy decision not to respond to player requests for building (e.g. houses, halls, wagons etc.). I expect few here even remember they could ask to have a house made once upon a time. Visibility is not the same as accomplishment. The point is that she genuinely cared about the game and the players. Halaster was also a moron in a lot of ways, but these people actually intended to make the game feel like a story you participated in rather than staff's jealously-guarded property that they permit you to enter if you make sure to take off your shoes. Also, as Sirra once put it, once these admins burned out and didn't feel like they could apply themselves anymore, they did us the favor of fucking off instead of hanging around all embittered and loathing the playerbase until they snap and throw a hysterical quitting fit. There's a marked difference in how the game was run back then and how they do it now, and it comes down to the general administrative approach. That's what's wrong with Armageddon, not that the fundamental features upon which the game is based don't function. Some of these admins were horrible Mary Sues and liked to make overpowered characters for themselves (remember Halaster's super-sorcerer?), but it came from a desire to create stories and make things happen. Their intentions were generally good is what I'm saying. Perhaps excluding Nessalin, but coders have more leeway to be assholes. Do you think that when more recent admins shut down cities, comb the forums for excuses to ban people and try to claim that the dwindling playerbase is a good thing because everyone who left happened to be bad for the game, that they do so out of any real drive to enrich and expand upon ArmageddonMUD? They may think they do, but ultimately it comes down to a need for control and possession, and often it's because they didn't get to accomplish that while actually playing the game. They join staff out of a desire to be in charge, and since they lack the maturity and vision to do something useful, they make bad changes for the sake of feeling like decisionmakers. Bad individuals getting into top staff positions was what went wrong, and things were a lot better before then. The root cause isn't permadeath or whatever, so it's kind of futile to analyse the code. Go back fifteen years and these things were what made Armageddon a great game that carried the RPI genre, and people who loved the game understood how to run it in a way that mitigated the problems that stem from various features, and how to satisfy the playerbase so they were less prone to antipathy, just as good sports referees do even though refereeing is inherently a source of disputes and embitterment. It all comes down to correct use of authority. |
|
ibusoe
Clueless newb
Posts: 176
|
Post by ibusoe on Aug 22, 2017 14:08:34 GMT -5
Allow me to retort. I think Armageddon has probably had no less than a different mission statement every three to six years, depending on the tenure of various admins. I am not so clear on the entire timeline, but I think its safe to put major waypoints somewhere in the ballpark of 1994, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2014, and this year. There might be smaller subdivisions that make sense to the informed, but my point is that Armageddon is not the same game as opened, or even what Halaster was running in 2006. Thank you for weighing in, Sir. I agree with your point that Armageddon has changed over time, as well it should. Perhaps I failed to correctly make my point. In attempting to devise a thesis for the game, I was simply trying to develop a criterion by which to evaluate the game's overall success or failure. There is a difference between a gripe and a complaint, and a difference between a complaint and a critique. To my satisfaction, no one has yet tried to critique Armageddon. There are quite a few gripes and many valid complaints but no central organized attempt to say if the game is good at the things that the game is supposed to be good at. I'd argue that it isn't - what fun there is to be had in the game, has almost nothing to do with role-playing, murder, corruption or betrayal. Most of the fun I've had in the game has happened in spite of the efforts of the staff, not because of them. For the game to become better, I think it must first be necessary for the administrators to understand if they're successful or not. Being as objective as I can about the issue, i believe that I've demonstrated that the staff simply aren't successful at fulfilling their original outline. To head off your point, I'll follow that up by saying no where have they amended their original outline to reflect a goal that would be tenable for them. My point is that if staff never bother to correct the central design of the game, it will never measurably improve. My perception of the core problem is well documented on this board, and boils down to the failure of appealing to one or two bartle types of players. And I likewise find Bartle analysis interesting. I think your assessment is correct to the extent that you're diagnosing a problem with the game. I disagree though that this is a core problem. For example, let's assume that the staff were reading this and completely took your advice to heart. How might they respond to this? Let's suppose they brought in a Bartle Consultant who was careful to study staff activities and point out where the staff were failing one particular demographic or other. Would this fix the game? In my experience, it would not. The Bartle Consultant might at first strive to make a more balanced game, but since most of the game issues don't really stem from a Bartle imbalance, the position would pretty quickly turn into a political role. And the political role would pretty quickly turn into a political appointment. Having a perfectly balanced Bartle metric wouldn't make players overall happier. To my way of thinking, you're pointing out a symptom and not a core problem. Please feel free to respond if you feel that I've misunderstood what you've attempted to convey. To me this is worth getting right. I think the programmer investment to maintain a mud should not be downplayed. I've seen a couple muds with strong admins fail to run a rotting, unchanging heap successfully. Arm has had some productive talent involved, even if they have not gone in the direction I would have. Here I think your reasoning is off. I don't think a fun MUD requires a lot of code features. If you take a game as procedural as chess for example, I could come up with half a dozen variants that would probably entertain people for a while. The only features I would really need to video-gamize this are control of the shape of the chess board, the number and types of pieces, and the number of players. But there are plenty of variations on the theme that would entertain people for days, or even weeks provided that players had some interest at all in chess. Adding a bunch of new pieces and new features wouldn't necessarily make the game much more entertaining. In fact, some of the funnest, most replayable games out there (like Settlers of Catan) have fundamentally simple rules. This is part of where I think staff have gone wrong. They were making a lot of new content - be it clan documentation or code features - when very few of us really cared. Most of us were bemoaning, I suspect, the lack of access to existing features rather than worrying about adding new features to which we would not have immediate access. It's not like we're all rushing off to play Eve Online, or something where the code base supports a lot of cool stuff that's not available in DIKU. We're leaving the game because we're tired of haggling with staff whether or not we have enough karma to play an Elkrosian, whose related code probably hasn't changed that much since I first started playing. I dont think we could agree on the proper successor to Arm, between us. I am not sure one programmer can write one mud that appeals to everyone. Do you think it could be done? Depends on what you mean. Like as a DJ, I happen to know that I can pick a single track that will get pretty much everyone, even really diverse people, all dancing at the same time. I don't feel that this is too tough to do. I'll concede that I can't think of a single track that would have everyone singing along, so to speak. Perhaps this is what you mean? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 14:57:22 GMT -5
And I've read your writing on this subject. I think your assessment is correct to the extent that you're diagnosing a problem with the game. I disagree though that this is a core problem. For example, let's assume that the staff were reading this and completely took your advice to heart. How might they respond to this? Let's suppose they brought in a Bartle Consultant who was careful to study staff activities and point out where the staff were failing one particular demographic or other. Would this fix the game? In my experience, it would not. The Bartle Consultant might at first strive to make a more balanced game, but since most of the game issues don't really stem from a Bartle imbalance, the position would pretty quickly turn into a political role. And the political role would pretty quickly turn into a political appointment. Having a perfectly balanced Bartle metric wouldn't make players overall happier. To my way of thinking, you're pointing out a symptom and not a core problem. Please feel free to respond if you feel that I've misunderstood what you've attempted to convey. To me this is worth getting right. I'll reply to this in pieces. I think you are making important points. Some examples: Several clans have a pattern of the repeating "total party kill" rpt. If I want to have a character live a long time, for any number of reasons, logically I have to avoid joining a clan, or just be logged out for every rpt. Every once in a while a clan does need adjustment, but does the 3-6 month Byn purge cycle help any bartle playstyle? The lack of asynchronous message delivery is a killer for almost everyone. It makes the world smaller. This feature could serve as a needed economic sink. It keeps achievers from organizing or dividing up larger tasks. It keeps explorer pcs from being valuable as scouts or gatherers, to as many other players. It keeps socializer pcs from organizing stages and events. In a more specific example, when Salarr and Kadian hunter pc positions were removed, why not make a town crier pc who could be loaded with Fedex quest jobs and payments for specific materials. Then, the staff would TURN OFF most or all automatic material and item loading for Salarr and Kadius. I can see several players I know becoming hopelessly addicted to inventory and production line management tasks in a GMH merchant role. By the same token, why not have a bored Byn Runner npc at the gates of their compound take messages for the active Bynners at the rank of Mercenary or Sergeant, for a modest cost. Wouldnt the political players, the crafting players, and the some of the scouts have better playstyle support if they could find a mercenary to actually hire? If in the middle of the magic redesign, they could have put the Explorer spells in subguilds with a different magick word system. If on character generation, a character was given a hidden seed, and had to "spell research" all of their own combinations for explorer spells, those guilds would naturally interest people who like having detection and movement powers. Its likely I could go on in this vein for a great deal of time. My point however is, until a few months ago, most of the changes I saw to the mud were managing player access to social stages. The ATV camp changes. Removal of Tuluk. The melodious secret clan. Reopening Terash. Removing Hunter roles. Etc. There have been at least five changes in the last six months that directly support Explorer play. I am willing to bet real money either a prolific Builder or a newly promoted Admin who can green light changes enjoys that play style. If staff were deliberately stocked with staff of different Bartle styles, I am confident due to research I can link that the game would retain more players. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 16:10:41 GMT -5
For the game to become better, I think it must first be necessary for the administrators to understand if they're successful or not. Being as objective as I can about the issue, i believe that I've demonstrated that the staff simply aren't successful at fulfilling their original outline. To head off your point, I'll follow that up by saying no where have they amended their original outline to reflect a goal that would be tenable for them. My point is that if staff never bother to correct the central design of the game, it will never measurably improve. In a perfect world, how would staff be chosen? |
|
jjhardy
Displaced Tuluki
Posts: 288
|
Post by jjhardy on Aug 24, 2017 14:37:39 GMT -5
Please remember that staff was probably chosen from amongst the same idiots who kept 'winning' the call for sponsored roles, over and over, only to get bored,store, die, suicide or overall fuck things up AND get Karma for it. What would make them think that would make a good staff member?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 16:05:17 GMT -5
Please remember that staff was probably chosen from amongst the same idiots who kept 'winning' the call for sponsored roles, over and over, only to get bored,store, die, suicide or overall fuck things up AND get Karma for it. What would make them think that would make a good staff member? Can you name a player or three you would enjoy as a staff member? Can a mud function with some sort of periodic review of staffers by the players? |
|
ibusoe
Clueless newb
Posts: 176
|
Post by ibusoe on Aug 24, 2017 18:29:50 GMT -5
Its likely I could go on in this vein for a great deal of time. My point however is, until a few months ago, most of the changes I saw to the mud were managing player access to social stages. The ATV camp changes. Removal of Tuluk. The melodious secret clan. Reopening Terash. Removing Hunter roles. Etc. There have been at least five changes in the last six months that directly support Explorer play. I am willing to bet real money either a prolific Builder or a newly promoted Admin who can green light changes enjoys that play style. If staff were deliberately stocked with staff of different Bartle styles, I am confident due to research I can link that the game would retain more players. Your logic appears spurious. I won't disagree with your deduction that one of the rising stars in the staff roster may be a socialite player. A clever deduction, really. I don't think it supports what you were saying earlier that balancing the Bartle styles of the staff would fix the game. Bartle balance is one of several possible metrics of success, but I would argue that player happiness would be a better metric. Please allow me to support my point - I think that you could crank up the balance on the Bartle metric extensively, but still successfully run the game into the ground. By contrast, I'd suggest that with my proposed plan would make the game nearly better for everyone, especially the staff. The only Bartle designation demographic that I don't think would be positively impacted would be the explorers. But yes, the staff would have to actively get organized in order for the explorers to be happier. My changes would be designed to boost morale by clarifying rules, reducing and ameliorating player conflict. Even as far as symptoms go, I'm not satisfied that a Bartle imbalance is key performance metric. To me a game could be plenty swell if it appealed to no more than three of the four demographics. Imagine for example, if the socializers were having a good time, the explorers were uncovering new things and the killers were locked in glorious combat...I mean it would be a shame to loose the achievers, or what have you but I'm sure plenty of the achievers could sate themselves on violence, exploration and socializing. By contrast, with the rules as arbitrary as they currently are and player morale so low, even balancing your proposed metric would do little to help, I'm afraid. This is the nature of root causes. In a perfect world, how would staff be chosen? Yes this question really puzzled me. Mostly I was puzzled that you would want to ask me this, given that I'm something of an idiot. Regardless, here is the algorithm that I used to choose staff members, back when I was running a MUD. For starters, I'd speak affectionately to anyone that expressed interest in helping the MUD. Next, I'd task them with a small amount of work. Many people never completed this test assignment, so I'd never follow up with them. Those who completed their assignment would next receive a modicum of training, and then more assignments. Then a bit more training, then a lot more assignments. Eventually, but only at great length would I encourage these brave souls to have an opinion. So that's my experience - whomever is actually in charge should begin delegating work to people. Those who perform should receive more work. Opinions were generally discouraged. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 11:52:49 GMT -5
Your logic appears spurious. I won't disagree with your deduction that one of the rising stars in the staff roster may be a socialite player. A clever deduction, really. I don't think it supports what you were saying earlier that balancing the Bartle styles of the staff would fix the game. Bartle balance is one of several possible metrics of success, but I would argue that player happiness would be a better metric. Please allow me to support my point - I think that you could crank up the balance on the Bartle metric extensively, but still successfully run the game into the ground. By contrast, I'd suggest that with my proposed plan would make the game nearly better for everyone, especially the staff. The only Bartle designation demographic that I don't think would be positively impacted would be the explorers. But yes, the staff would have to actively get organized in order for the explorers to be happier. My changes would be designed to boost morale by clarifying rules, reducing and ameliorating player conflict. Even as far as symptoms go, I'm not satisfied that a Bartle imbalance is key performance metric. To me a game could be plenty swell if it appealed to no more than three of the four demographics. Imagine for example, if the socializers were having a good time, the explorers were uncovering new things and the killers were locked in glorious combat...I mean it would be a shame to loose the achievers, or what have you but I'm sure plenty of the achievers could sate themselves on violence, exploration and socializing. By contrast, with the rules as arbitrary as they currently are and player morale so low, even balancing your proposed metric would do little to help, I'm afraid. This is the nature of root causes. I'm not claiming my way is the only path to success. I do distinguish between actionable tasks as a path to success, and metrics to measure if they are working. We rail a good deal against some Admins, but I dont hear many solutions about the problem that get much past torches and pitchforks. I share your observation that a majority of the people who volunteer for staff dont have the time, talent, personality, or follow through. I had the same problem as a mud admin. I like the idea of clarifying rules. I suspect most of this will come down to the "core insult'; few people on Arm havent been playing some sort of game for 20+ years. Some of us have been roleplaying more than forty years. To tell any of those people that they are incapable of acceptable roleplay is bound to be perceived by some as a slap in the face. I cant think of a good clarification on karma rules, however, without manufacturing some pretty specific player behaviors. In example, I'm not the only one who sees a link between character longevity and the award of karma. I begin to suspect that the only mud that would solve the perceived arm problems would be one where administrative functions and storyteller functions were so separated that players could step in and out of the latter role. That kind of mud would probably require an entirely different design and backstory, as well as a metrics harness that gathered reputation and trust data on every player (not character). |
|
delerak
GDB Superstar
PK'ed by jcarter
"When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." - Otto Von Bismarck
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by delerak on Sept 11, 2017 17:51:43 GMT -5
Armageddon worked reasonably well for a large number of years. While there have always been shortcomings, the real dysfunctionality didn't emerge until approximately ten years ago. This was when some of the game's veteran visionaries like Sanvean and Halaster began to depart and were replaced by people who had only ever known the game when it had already settled and lacked an appreciation for what had grown over time. Prior to this, Arm was a much more malleable thing whose curators had a nurturing attitude toward its direction. I'm not sure what game you were playing back then but by no means were San/Hal "veteran visionaries" as you call them. vi·sion·ar·y ˈviZHəˌnerē/ adjective adjective: visionary 1. (especially of a person) thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom. "a visionary leader" synonyms: inspired, imaginative, creative, inventive, ingenious, enterprising, innovative; More Halaster ran several plots with insanely powerful characters that were (for the most part) immortal and unkillable. He was also a coder that added code in for his Plainsman or other characters then utilized it in these plots. To me this is a classic case of narcsissm and seflishness. Arm was his play thing, he ran around with plainsman and did whatever he wanted, even sat on his immortal character so he could see everything going on in the world. Bhagharva did some similar stuff as well. To me this is what always bothered me about the game, hiding stuff like this was a big shortcoming of the staff at the time. They should have came straight out and said what was going on rather than trying to "move the pawns" behind the scenes. The pawns being us the players of course. I quit arm a lot of times throughout the years and eventually just stopped playing, thinking back on how much I was abused as a player by those guys was really fucked up actually. I was young and stubborn and dumb and now that I'm older I wouldn't put up with it at all, why tolerate such fuckery? Arm was really a game for a few people to enjoy, there was never a level playing field (karma system) and so as you become a veteran you either join that "in group" or you remain in the out group and quit the game. That's how I look at it anyway, you're more than welcome to your roses tinted glasses, your unrealistic optimism of the past is wrong though. |
|
|
|
Post by sirra on Sept 13, 2017 0:47:39 GMT -5
Sanvean and Halaster just seem much better in retrospect, because they were the last generation of staffers who were still excited about Armageddon semi-original premise, enjoyed it, and wanted to grow it. They weren't perfect by any means. But I'd rather take a half dozen Halaster coders with god trips, over even one miserable piece of human garbage like Nessalin.
Sanvean had a hilarious bias towards female players, and would load them up with karma, even when they weren't very good or were ignorant about the game. But she had her fun moments. Female gypsies and bards were like catnip to her.
I guess the main difference is that Sanvean and Halaster were objectively, bad staffers. Whereas those that took over from them, namely Nyr, Adhira and Nessalin were objectively, bad people.
Another thing that San and Hal never did, was that they didn't use bureaucracy as an excuse to do as little as possible, which Adhira raised to an art form.
And you know what the BEST part about Sanvean and Hal was? When they lost interest in the game, they FUCKED OFF and did other things to amuse themselves. They didn't try and drag the game down with them.
It was also possible to have a real conversation with Sanvean and Hal. There was something resembling a real person behind the screen. The best you could hope for from Adhira, was a semi-benevolent neglect, as she treats her many cats. Nessalin, with his dead pig eyes was entirely indifferent. Nyr was ironically, the only one who you could even partially engage with, and he was mostly pretending. Those three remained the core decision makers, even as a number of good staff came and went around them.
|
|
