Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 581 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Comments
Please don't drop us down to two cities. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. The tether conflict is already there, shadow vs spirit. If cities get dropped down into the same thing (especially with Oonagh's point about how we already brutally punish rogues) then we're just adding another layer of that same conflict. As it stands, We can and do have some disagreements. The Accords treaty was VERY interesting to deal with because it was Spinesreach and Enorian trying to figure out how to get Duiran to the bargaining table and keep Bloodloch from doing ...well, Bloodloch things. Removing the back and forth between cities on your same tether will just strip away more of the conflict in the game and make it even harder to encourage conflict between organizations without it devolving directly into spirit vs shadow free-for-alls.
A lot of the opinions that seem to be in favor of the houses system (which I admit I also don't understand, having never tried Achaea) are only mechanically doing a few things: adding in a pre-guild (congreagation) step, divorcing class from the guild, and doing some renaming/condensing. We used to have a pre-guild esque set up, and then moved novices over into the city. I really feel like this was a mistake, and while I get that it was done to help out the novices entering into a guild that was dead with no one around, they get next to no integration or interaction from even the healthy guilds until they graduate and are inducted into the guild proper. I'd love to see novices filter back to their guilds first, but perhaps keep the city novice channel as well so that those additional supports are possible.
I also can't agree more with Haven's point of agency for players. The more condensed we get, the fewer options players are going to have to rock the boat and still have another viable option to continue enjoying the game. The fewer orgs we have, the more stagnating click leaderships we're going to have, and the faster we're going to either bore or drive out the players that don't fit into the cookie-cutter (and the long term player in me wants to add in admin forced) RP away from the game entirely.
Imvra has been handling this thread with grace, so I haven’t felt the need to join in on the topic and the only reason I am is to reassure you of this:
We are trying something new here. Organisations are demanding, not because YOU, the players, are demanding, but because we want to ensure they’re all getting the attention they deserve with enough MEAT for your character to build a life with.
The short: We aren’t out to get you. We just want some help.
Written with love.
well, i also wanna say that a lot of people who want to keep guilds but don't think class should be tied to guild might actually like the 'house' system, at least as i've outlined it, since it maintains the smaller niches for advancement/differences in playstyle/etc/.... that's all okthxbai
Thank you both honestly for communicating with us, and to @Tiur and everyone else up there who is being communicative on various facets of the game.
From a player standpoint, and I think on a greater scale, the community standpoint... Alot of us feel sometimes in past interactions that were the last point of contact on various fleshed out ideas. That when it gets to these discussions theres been months prior of communication and were getting an idea of what to expect when we see these threads. In the past its been done in a way that was not so communicative, so I can totally understand where you all are coming from with feeling we are coming off in a manner perceived as defensive.
What we truly are doing is wanting to work with you, I did afford the pools esteem earlier on this regard as well, because much like this being new for you all and you all working with us as the community, it is also new for us, but it is with a grain of salt, because some transitions have not historically been done with such tact and communication. I think I can speak on behalf of the community when I say that were on your side, and we want you to know that, but on the other vein, we are hesitant and some older players are left with bad feelings. I am super glad you want help, and I think all of us are glad to give it.
I appreciate you being up front and saying that the decision isnt already made, because I will be honest, I am one....of likely many who felt this was merely a courtesy.
I am 100 percent happy to be proven wrong.
Thank you, honestly, this isn't sarcasm, just text really doesn't translate tone well.
we also had like 3-4 orgreqs that were approved but sitting for over a year - all summarily deleted along with the guild.
speaking of which - i know i risk digging up hard feelings and renewing calls of "you did it to yourselves", but i think there are absolutely some lessons relevant to this situation that should be drawn from the indorani's deletion. first, echoing Lexen, is the issue of communication. i won't go into everything that happened leading up to the deletion, but afterwards, we received nothing in the way of communication until i begged for it. i became something of a pest, in fact, because of it. i know i crossed some lines, but at the core of the issue is that a whole group of players, not just me, needed to hear and be heard. admin did not reach out to us at all, and regardless of who's really at fault for the deletion (coughmecough), players shouldn't have to ask, much less hound, you for basic information.
again, please let me be clear, i say this not to rehash what's now irrevocably in the past or reignite a debate. i'm trying to say - please, let us all do better at this going forward. whatever changes are made, whether things are deleted or consolidated or otherwise, need to be accompanied by proactive, forthright, and regular communication between players and admin. i think Lexen's really right that an hour a month to check in with leaders on direction, happenings, etc., could do a world of wonder even if we ultimately kept everything else exactly the same. communication like that builds trust between parties, reduces any sense of players and admin being adversaries, and allows for corrections to be made before things are too far out of hand to avoid an explosion that burns everyone.
in fact, i think that's related to the other lesson i wanted to bring up. the carnifex were essentially forcibly taken, and the indorani were outright deleted. something both cases share is that they obliterated *tons* of players' work. sure, both are cases where you might (and some do) reasonably say "well, you were told not to go that direction," but they're both cases that could have been avoided with more proactive communication. what's more - they're also both cases where admin plans collided with and won out over player efforts.
it's easy to look at that happening and say that it's only to be expected. admin have more power than players in the sense that they can move, change, delete whatever essentially at their whim, and there are good reasons for them to have this power! someone has to captain the ship, right? keep the train from going off the rails? other transportation metaphor?
the problem is that aetolia isn't exactly just a boat/train/car - it's not a work with a single author. it is, at least to *some degree*, a collaborative work that by its very nature relies upon user-generated content (a point @Haven made that, regardless of what you think about conflict systems, i think is really really true). people in this thread, however, have repeatedly named multiple examples of instances where admin plans overrode player efforts and desires, arguing that these instances have weakened the game. the lesson i want to draw from this is that... the balance between admin plans and player efforts may need to be recalibrated a bit. for every admin action that was taken - whether it was moving the carnifex, deleting the indorani, or simply introducing the guild/city lock - it's easily possible to imagine scenarios where rather than digging in on their stance, admin adjusted their plans to be more accommodating of player efforts. the track record of ignoring these efforts when they run counter to some (often unknown to players) admin plan, up to the point that player efforts are *completely destroyed*, makes everyone a bit wary of changes.
i don't mean to suggest admin should change their course in *every* such situation (e.g. communication issues aside, the indorani probs was fine), but if players feel steamrolled too often - see each other being steamrolled - it has an effect. in the present context, the indorani's deletion, however justified, is just the most recent example of the administration's willingness to "burn" a group of players. we were one of the oldest guilds in the game, after all, with tons of player-generated stuff, and we were almost certainly the most vibrant org in bloodloch. if we can so easily be here today, gone tomorrow - along with all that player effort - i think others watching are justified in feeling a bit nervous and protective of their efforts, even while accepting that the indorani "deserved it".
god i'm trying to be so clear that i'm not arguing the indorani shouldn't have been deleted, just that the way it went down had psychological ramifications across the game and reinforced nervousness from other such events. pls don't take any of this to be ragging on anyone or reopening the debate about what should've or could've happened, i'm really not trying to cause trouble. >.<
ETA WOW THIS IS WHY YOU READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE WRITING A STUPID LONG-WINDED POST OK SORRY I'LL SHOW MYSELF OUT
We, the team, aren’t perfect. You see it when things fall through and forgotten. It is a short-coming when your team is made up primarily of volunteers who have their own lives, and full time jobs and who knows what else is going on behind the scenes? None of us without asking. The same as you, the players, aren’t perfect for exactly the same reasons. We make mistakes with the best of them. However, we learn from the mistakes and try to do better. We do our best.
This is one of those. An attempt at better communication. Aetolia is a contributed effort of staff and players. That shouldn’t ever be forgotten, it’s not you against us, or us against you. It’s us for us. We should all be a little kinder to each other.
That is where this thread stemmed from - in my own personal opinion, we need some change for our organisations. We need to be able to deliver more, but in a way where it doesn’t leave the organisations in a position where there is too much, or too little, staff interference.
We need something that allows you guys to drive the bigger story for your organisations, but where we can make some minor corrections to ensure we stay on the storyline line.
Something that needs US less so we don’t miss the smaller details so much, but isn’t less meaningful or impactful.
There has been a lot of different proposals in the Pools, none seem up to scratch. So we need to do better. So far, we have gotten a lot of great feedback from you guys and that’s appreciated immensely.
fwiw, maybe something it can be helpful for everyone to keep in mind is: sometimes people repeat themselves because they don't feel like they've been heard or understood rather than because they're ignoring what was said or being passive-aggressive. i certainly tend to do it (although i'm working on practicing better strategies).
i mention this because it's often helpful - both for fostering mutual understanding and for avoiding frustration - to look at the repetition with the perspective of "what am i missing? what is this person trying to communicate that they don't feel is being heard?" it's a subtle shift, perhaps, but asking questions (even internally) rather than assuming we know what a person is thinking or trying to do is generally so much more productive. most of us are trying to communicate in good faith, right? maybe we get jumbled up, but i don't think anyone's trying to be malicious or even passive-aggressive. :}
I'm not gonna throw a fit if something new gets created though. If it does though, I think two points need to be considered. One is that while you will probably need admin involvement to change direction of an org or make big advancements, it should be fully sustainable by players only. For the above reasons, you can't rely on Admins to keep an org afloat. Players need to get involved and do it. Take initiative, do the small RP's. Don't wait for world shaking events before you take part, they wont' happen often and you'll get bored. And in my experience the admin are more likely to get interested and get involved if your org is already active and doing regular fun little events and RP's you host. Most of them were players too, and they like getting in on that for fun and will get involved. And a bunch of the little ones can add up to a world shaking event and make it all the more satisfying, because you laid the ground work and helped it along. Yes doing your own thing can bring you into conflict with others in the same org, but that's not something that should scare you, or make you run away. Conflict even among allies is natural and can create some amazing RP. And most guild's should have something in place to resolve disputes among guildmates.
Secondly, it has been said that guilds are too isolated from cities, which are the central orgs and focus of the game now. I believe that's actually a good thing, it provides something needed. You won't always agree with the decisions and the way a city and its leaders are going. The city is a vast political machine though with many parts. It's hard to make big changes or change policy. It takes a lot of support, getting others on your side, time and planning. Politics. And if you have to do that in the city, it's too easy for groups in power to crush dissenters and those wanting change. Guild's letting people gather in the city but act as a buffer, a protection. It lets groups not in power gather allies and might, and push for changes. This is an absolutely necessary thing for city's to continue to grow and improve. To give players an outlet who feel like they are being repressed. A way to gather and plan to make real changes. Sometimes for the benefit of the city, sometimes for the detriment, but those are the kind of gambles you need to make RP worthwhile. If it's only things that everyone likes, nothing will ever get changed or grow. And you may not even know you like something till you experience it. So if we do replace guilds, I think they still need that buffer and isolation from the city a bit. Not to foster rebellions and revolts, but to give a way for people productively make changes and propose things that can shake up the city for the better.
If cities are currently supposed to be the central engine for community right now, and if my experience as a city leader is what other city leaders are experiencing, then I've found your problem right there. There IS NO communication going on between city leaders and the admin, at least in my case and I have a strong lead on at least one other. I asked for it, then followed up. Then asked again. Then got annoying. Then got aggressive. Then got an 'answer' that pretty much made me lose faith in that ever being a viable option again. So what I'm left with is using my own best judgement and guessing at where the city is supposed to be headed, which really forces me to spend half of my time spinning my wheels because if I try anything too out of the scope of what the admin want, experience has taught me that I'll be railroaded or blackballed in some way. It's not what you necessarily wanted players to learn from past experiences (and yes, I understand that the admin are people too, and people make mistakes), but it's important that we approach this with a realistic and honest front. I can honestly say that I have very little faith in the administration's ability to communicate, and feel that there isn't even an attempt to do so. The only interactions I've seen in character has all looked like meddling instead of guidance as a result of that. I'm sure I'm not the only player that has those feelings, just as I'm sure there are others out there with far better experiences that don't have this position of concern.
For my second real life roll, I'm an elected leader for a group of college students across the United States. I'm geographically responsible for the administrative work of six colleges in my area-- my job as an unpaid volunteer is to ensure that their organizations are running smoothly, that they are in line with our national policies and by-laws, that their programs are operating well and appropriately, and that they are learning the skills they need to eventually step out into the world and become leaders in their communities. I do this with absolutely no authority whatsoever, except for the nuclear option to recommend dissolving their organization (though I can't even do that without kicking it up the ladder).
What I have learned from this position, which I've held for six years at this point, is that staying in communication with my students makes my job twenty times easier. By being a regular presence at their meetings and making sure they're comfortable with who I am and what I'm there to do for them, when problems crop up, I find out WAY before they become a serious issue. You don't want your players in leadership only reaching out when things have gotten so far out of hand that they've gotten to their last option; you want players to be comfortable with speaking to admin on a casual basis, so that when the 'how are things going' question is tossed out there, you get the inside lead on 'There is the possibility of a major meltdown because x is expected to happen'.
Regardless of if guilds or cities or any other system changes or not, you're still going to have this chasm between player leadership and admin if that problem is not addressed, and as was said before: we'll just end up in this same place a year or so down the road once the shiny wears off.
This thread is an attempt to address some problems that a changing dynamic has created so by default there's a lot of negativity. Before I add to that I wanna mention the things that have changed that are pretty damned amazing.
1) THE ENTIRE YLEM SYSTEM. Man the amount of back end coding that went into that had to have been a nightmare. But we've got amulets, and orbs, and pylon manipulations, conflict and all sorts of other amazing benefits.
2) MULTICLASSING Hullo! I mean wow, I remember before multiclassing when people had to actually leave their guilds if they got bored with skills! Now you can collect classes like mini pets- gotta catch 'em all! Or remember when a clique could flatly deny you a class you wanted? No more, not with multi-classing.
3) FLUID CACHE Oh my love, how I love you. Anybody else remember running around with five million vials?
4) FIRSTAID Holy smokes HULLO! I remember being in Kelsys with no auto sipper, no basher and having to manually stick analeptic and eat kidney WHILE frenzying a whitetip and getting eaten cause I'm the typo queen.
I could keep going but I think I've made my point. The admin side of the game, working with a mostly volunteer workforce has made all of these wonderful things happen and I think humans have a bad habit of focusing on the bad and not enough on the good.
Now for me to pile onto the negative side of things. When I mentioned some of the more recent changes to the best friend his comments on them really struck me. I mentioned the guild/city tethers and the shadow/spirit tethers. (Yeah, it's been a REALLY long time since he's logged in.)
And his comment was "Wow, is someone trying to deliberately kill Aetolia? The beauty of the game was the freedom it offered people to indulge in and engage with their imaginations."
Obviously, he was saying that mostly in jest. We all know that no one involved is trying to kill Aetolia. But the second part of his comment is valid. We've lost a lot of freedom and as those guardrails have gone up so that we can't change lanes to avoid irresponsible drivers, more accidents (problems) are happening.
In any organization, be it a country or household or game world, the more freedom you have the less safety you have. It's the constant balancing act between the two that when accomplished is a true work of art. Over the years I've seen a lot of freedoms abused, so I get why they ended up being stifled. Yet the city/guild tether seems to have caused more damage than it fixed.
Each of the four cities has a very unique flavor to it. Bloodloch was originally created as a safe haven for vampires. Shoot for years it was illegal for anyone living to be a citizen. (I'm not saying it should still be that way just pointing out some history.) Vampires, the main draw for Aetolia, have a very unique culture. It's understandable that they'd need their own space where they make the rules, yet for the sake of balance, there are two guilds there that you don't HAVE to be a vampire to be in. Carnifex and teradrim. So what if you're a living carnifex? Or a teradrim who isn't a vampire? And you love your guild, but you don't really 'fit' in your city?
Well, now you have no choice. Either suck it up and cope, retire or eventually just drift away from the game entirely. Or have a guild get gutted (Carnifex) when the hard choices are made and people end up leaving.
Allowing people to live in the city that their guild isn't housed in would return some autonomy to the players in a beneficial way, as well as take some of the pressure off of admin to have to constantly mediate interpersonal problems- of which I'm quite sure you all get entirely too many of via the issue system.
Also, what Aloli said about cross guilding. Brilliant. Inclusiveness and rewards are always better ways of getting the behavior you'd prefer out of people rather than stagnation and punishments.
Also, the communication issue. I agree with literally everything Lexen said. I'm not certain what the answer is because knowing what I do about how few paid admin there are versus volunteers, and what ya'lls workload must look like, I always feel guilty asking questions or for assistance with anything. Yet, there are some things that just flatly can't be handled without admin assistance. Plus, if we allow players more input into the direction for guilds, city's, orders et then that takes some of the pressure off of admin to 'entertain' us. Given that Aetolia has the ability to take advantage of so much player inspired content it's foolish not to. We've got some really creative, intelligent people with good ideas. Use 'em! But we can't without better communication. So a balance there needs to be found as well. Anyway, that's my own two cents worth. Remove guild/city tethers and let us be able to take advantage of where people are the most comfortable and happy to work.
I've tried to make this somewhat of a list to cover a few points, sorry if it's not the most fluid.
- This has been covered by several others, but I agree that tying the guilds to the cities can be frustrating. It puts you in a spot that if there is something you don't like between one or the other you have to choose between the two. It also, in my opinion, limits RP and individuality because you have to be part of that city even if the other fits you better.
- I am opposed to cities becoming too much of the center focus and losing the smaller guild structures. One strong reason for this in my opinion is because of new players. I think a lot of us have played Aetolia for years and we can forget what it's like if you are fairly new to the game or new to MUDs. Guilds offer a smaller, (in my opinion) safer place to figure out what is going on and where you fit in the game before putting too much effort into the city.
That said, in some ways I agree it would be nice if novices were placed in the guild right away. I try to check citywho and look for novices as I remember, but my checking of Guildwho is much more frequent and if there is a new name at the bottom, I'm a lot more likely to notice and reach out.
- In terms of city ministries, I don't mind them becoming a little more consolidated but having a lot of options also leaves new people open to get involved. I like the earlier mentioned idea of leadership being able to change or consolidate ministries as necessary, so if there is a lull, combine a couple ministries. But if you have a lot of people trying to get involved, split them back up.
- I also want to add that I find it easier, especially with new characters, to get involved with a guild than a city. Someone mentioned this earlier, but the guilds tend to feel more like family and friends whereas the city often feels more proper, plus with there tending to be a fair number more people, who do you even reach out to?
In most instances I can think of, I've become friends with those in my guild a lot easier than just anyone from the city. The roleplay is more organic and the opportunities are greater. Plus if I have a question or need something, I feel free to ask guildmates and as if they should more of less expect questions. It's not always so easy or straightforward with the citymembers in general.
- So for my thoughts on houses instead of guilds. I'm not generally opposed to the idea as a whole if we want to make a change, but I tried to play Achaea more than once, and I didn't like the house structure. One, I didn't really know which house to choose, even with the files that briefly explained them, and it left me seeking out players to try and figure them out, which wasn't much more help than the files to be honest. Two, they didn't feel as structured as guilds and I still felt a little lost on what the heck I was supposed to be doing.
Sometimes the guilds in game can lose momentum, yes. But having small organizations can also make it so that people are a closer-knit community and offer guidance to the wide-eyed novices that are just trying to figure out the basics. It also, as I mentioned, gives players a place to meet people and start up roleplays in a smaller group.
- I also want to say I love the idea of little missions for the orgs. As someone had mentioned earlier (too lazy to scroll back and see who, sorry) it would be great if there were little lines that made them feel like they are making a difference. Or they got rewards in the guild for doing something (such as the patrols) I think it would make people feel more needed and involved. It also gives them something to do on downtime and still feel connected to the goal or mission of the guild.
- Also just throwing in my support for loosening restrictions on the guilds and letting players have a bit more freedom without needing admin involvement.
- And I'm also for doing 10 guild ranks.
- And one more note, I know this is long, but people have said so much! If we get rid of class being tied to guilds, I think the guild lore and structure will have to be more clearly defined and hashed out. It sounds nice in some ways, but again I go back to people who try to play that are newer to the game. If you leave the decision to them where to join without clear guidelines, how do they pick? They aren't going to know how the different GMs run things or understand the nuances of each guild more seasoned players will. Also, because of class being tied to guild for so long, it has become an integral part of guilds' lore, structure, and training. It would take some serious time and thought to detach the two from each other. With multi-classing, I don't think this is that much of an issue and I think the headache of un-aligning the guilds/classes will do more damage than good.
For those who made it to the end, thanks for sticking with me! Have a smiley face -
If you're reading this then I imagine some names just sprung to mind. I might be alone here but seeing a name in an organization for a real life year isn't a sign of stability, it's a sign of a dying organization. If that opinion is mine alone, fine, but I also admit it can be changed if the name has been growing their organization the entire time. Most don't or can't.
The good leaders end up doing all the work while others just soak up space. This is more of a human problem than Aetolia and one that might not always be true, but lack of communication of work is almost the same as having done no work at all. Admin can relate to that statement, I imagine.
Organizations are needed, because anarchy doesn't work. I also don't believe that cutting any number guilds/orgs/cities will help the situation for everyone. As stated many times, the problems we've been experiencing are due to rules and regulations that restrict player fun and engagement rather than empowering them to work things our for themselves.
Freedom attracts people and restrictions push them away. We saw player counts drop with deletion/changing of Ashtan, the Daru, Houses(Minor/Major meld), and the recently deleted Indorani.
Any changes to the organization structure needs to have these points outlined clearly. This also applies to guilds and houses:
1. How many coded positions are needed to run the organization?
Specifically, to handle game mechanics like promotion/funds/building etc. Hopefully, a small number.
2. Can organization leaders create new official (mechanically recognized) position to shift work/tasks onto new members?
This leaves openings for Roleplay to influence the government of whichever faction while easing admin involvement.
A mechanically recognized position is one that shows up on HELP scrolls or the c/g/h who.
Something akin to how guilds give positions to people, but extended to city/house/leagues.
3. How much and what work should each position be doing?
This is specifically for mechanic undertaking like shifting/distributing funds, replacing guards, training the young, stocking shops, handling scrollwork, libraries, etc.
4. How long should each position be held before some sort of mandatory contest is held?
A means to prevent stagnation by encouraging elections every few weeks/months and forcing the leader to own up to accomplishments and setbAacks.
As much as this might feel like it would get tedious/repetitive, there are plenty of orgs with no new posts for real life months.
Going onto point 2, a sub-position should be considered by most factions to encourage new members and old to train to handle the role.
5. How many ranks does the organization have and what reward/benefit does each offer?
Carrot on a stick idea here. Each rank needs to offer either a tangible reward, like some guilds with pets/items/or privilege - a RP reward.
6. Can the leadership tailor this number or augment it with positions, as mentioned in point 2?
A lot of organizations can overlap so membership in a dwindling guild still leaves avenues for engagement. If restrictions were lifted, guilds/factions forced to combine, they would still form groups via Clans or another way.
If there was a way to mechanically remove the need for a member of a guild to hold the class of their guild, that would be akin to how the house system works. Joining for the ideology over the skills. Likewise, drop tether for cities. Let players police abuse or step in case-by-case for cross-faction abuse.
Idea #752 Section: unassigned Support: 1
2017/09/01 01:21:58: Alternative election idea! Could there be a way for a player who is actively looking to step-down for an elected position to open an election? When you have elections, there's a "description" for every election, but it exactly the same, "being displeased with the performance of X..." - it would be cool to have one that was something like "X is retiring from their position of and is requesting applicants to replace them" or whatever. Just in general, having alternative election description options would be cool! Maybe have an option for recurring elections (i.e. if a city wanted to have a 3 year CL term, there could be a "term end/renewal election" in which an election is automatically opened with an applicable description and no one listed as candidates until they actively apply.
The good news is that there are some awesome ways of doing this through a major event and scaling down in a way that makes the mud feel very new and exciting to ALL of us. I think the least interesting way of doing this would be to simply destroy two cities but admittedly, this is the easiest way of consolidation. Instead, I would propose creating an event that destroys all of the cities along with the guild halls, dominion/houses, temples, etc. From the ashes create two NEW cities that bring each tether together in building them, consolidate some of the gods/orders to a point where none of them are just dead and inactive, create a better solution than the current dominion/house structure, etc.
I think the current guilds based on classes are a relic from before multi-classing and should be done away with especially so since you don't even have to have that class to be in the guild. If guilds stay around, I'd rather have new guilds created that aren't based on classes at all and class-hubs created as was described in the original post which would preserve the lore of each class. I'm thinking of a guild system such as the Night Masks, Harpers, etc. from D&D where the lore has nothing to do with a specific class but instead includes members from several classes who are focused on common goals.
If done right, this could be very interesting and breathe some life into Aetolia, not to mention it would kill multiple birds that have been discussed lately with one stone. It would be a good time to bring in a new faction powerful enough to cause this massive destruction, create class-hubs and city quests structured around fighting this enemy, do something better than dominion/houses, new guild system etc. Just some ideas off the top of my head but I'm sure our mud staff can do better than what I've come up with.
Not to mention that the most active have a tendency to be the most exclusive in their practices and they'll just swoop in and claim all the power for themselves. They'll be the ones manipulating the game to -their- desires and not what the playerbase as a whole needs. Some might not care if that happens but some will and be without a means to stop it.
It just wouldn't work. Even if the Admin destroy Aetolia and give full retirement to everyone active, then start a new Aetolia from scratch with their plans laid out in ways that won't favor the players with the most time to spend in game.
I'm not a fan of the idea at all. Though Albedos could be destroyed. Empty nothing that it is.
Unlink city/guild.
And whatever the answer is, wiping everything clean and starting new definitely isn't it.
Hardware problem - organisation size/significance does not match activity levels, i.e. there are guilds that should be shut down for lacking activity, yet should be kept for having great lore and RP.
Software problem - guilds die because of entrenched toxic leaders who fail to retain members.
The hardware problem might be an easier fix. I am not sure if this is how Achaea 'houses' work, but the crux is to have organisations dynamic and scalable - (i) downsizeable, so you can retain their lore when activity levels are low (without deleting them), and (ii) growable, so you can let active organisations return to full status when it's leaders and members have done the right things, leading to activity and growth. It changes status depending on activity and player interest.
I picture a guild going to dormant mode when the guild starts to suck, operating like a clan/faction. Then when players decide to band together and make it work, and more players start to join because this initial group is doing things right, this dormant guild would get to be upgraded to a 'full' guild.
In short, destroy nothing, and downsize nothing permanently. Just let the structure dynamically grow big and small according to player demand.
Now, the software problem is a little trickier, because it takes guts to fix. It's a people problem.
The hardware solution above won't do anything if there are toxic players allowed to kill player interest in these organisations. Players who may otherwise want to join to grow a dormant guild would think twice if there are toxic personalities squatting there and serving as a barrier to entry. I know I do.
The crux of the problem is using democracy as a mechanism to kick out leaders.
Democracy as a leadership replacement mechanism only works in the real world where it is not easy for your voters to opt out the organisation entirely. In the real world, I maybother to stay to vote the opposition party of my country because I can't easily migrate to another country. But if I were filthy rich and could just up and leave to another country, why wouldn't I?
Similarly, democracy is not going to work the same way in a game where it is easy to uproot and leave. If I see a toxic personality in my favourite organisation, I am going to leave. It's extremely easy to lose interest and do something else with the other well adjusted people - stay in web and chat, play another game. This is ultimately only a game, not real life.
Toxicity has to be cut out as a business decision (because its ultimately the full timers who bear the burden of a poor playerbase and enjoy the rewards of a thriving one) - it's not a problem that can be outsourced to players to fix, or fixed by working around these personalities by changing the hardware. It's a people problem.
In business, it is a common problem to worry about losing of few toxic paying customers, and forget about the other multitude of other customers who would otherwise have joined, stayed and paid (you immediately get to see the former, but not the latter). That's why it is important learn how to fire your customers. The income from the latter group will always win out because most people aren't toxic, and this group of people is invariably the larger customer base.
In short, it is up to the business decision makers to decide how they want to shape their customer base. Just remember that it is not a democracy - it is a business (and you should only let it be a democracy if it helps the business.) Until this is fixed, the game will be a turn-off to regular people who don't like facing toxicity. Especially not in a game where you are supposed to be having fun.
When the admins create too many shackles, it restricts player creativity. If someone wants to be a Carnifex but they're stuck in a city they hate, they'll likely just choose to not play. Putting the onus on the city/guild leaders to make their orgs more attractive fosters more opportunities for political roleplay and creates a real incentive to be competitive and appealing. It means that players are no longer with you because they have to be, but because they want to be.
I've played nothing but Syssin since this change went through, and that class is untethered. The Syssin are where they are because they're a well run guild, not because anybody is stuck with them. Because of this, I think the above realization took too long for me to see.
EDIT: I think the fact guilds like the Syssin and Sentaari -can- thrive is a good metric to let the same principle apply to all the other guilds.
But regarding the above quote: This will go so much farther than I can ever fathomably explain. Having, myself, asked for guidance/help on where I should be taking my guild (outside of a very nebulous "idfk, praise Gods or whatever. Do priest stuff") I've got gotten a whole lot. More over, I've got exactly nothing. Even after a town hall of Enorian and it's GM's and I even stated I, and my guild, could use some Birdseye View help. It amounted to "Okay, we hear you" and culminated in nothing.
As a GM, and I've been one for a while now, I'll be the first to admit I don't have a lot of ideas or things to work from. I thank my secretaries to hell and back for things they come up with, unicorns guild members too.
I genuinely believe more dialogue between GM's and Administration would be incredibly beneficial
EDIT: Whoops! Old thread is old. But I said what I said!