Guids and Cities?

Macavity

I am not sure where this belongs in the categories so Admin please move it if need be.

I have a question, that I am not 100% sure about. I cannot find the announce post for this either... grr

Anyways, I thought someone in a guild could only be part of the city the guild was tied to? For my example Teradrim must only be part of Bloodloch and not Spinesreach.

Did that change or did I completely misunderstand the tethers of guilds to cities?

thanks!

Rhyot

This is still the case despite the playerbase trying to get it lifted. 

Macavity

so why is Mazzion in Bloodloch and Sciomancers?

Imvra

Those who were in a conflicting stance were grandfathered over with the city-guild change.

Rhyot

Not sure. Ask him.

Rhyot

Wait wait wait....

I thought the admins said no exceptions? Its why half of the Carnifex quit the guild due to not being allowed to be Carnifex and Spirean. 

Imvra

From my understanding, there was an intention to put in a deadline, by which characters would have to choose one or the other. This was never instated, which has created a long-term limbo and unfair inconsistency.

It is something I and the Pools are aware of and have been ideating through a compromise resolution (in favour of more liberty, but not complete, as guilds do need to remain anchored within their housing city).

This is one of my top priorities once this next major project is rolled out in the upcoming week or two.

Rhyot

Whats the point of having them remain tethered to a city?? I never understood that logic. 

We have a playerbase of 100 people, all of which like having involvement in their guild and their city. A handful of guilds took a major hit when this change happened, both Spirit and Shadow side. The only thing this change did was cause strife. Why would you want to work on this more when the players don't even like it... unless your work is to remove the city-lock entirely. In which case, please and thank you.

Haven

Xenia

Imvra said:

Those who were in a conflicting stance were grandfathered over with the city-guild change.

Grandfathering in everyone who didn't ditch their guilds is so annoying because if the bulk of people didn't take the admin's word as law and swapped before they were forced to hang out in limbo and not be able to leave until a hard decision was made are basically getting the shaft for complying.

Talk about some of the cornerstone foundation blocks of my distrust for admin, this reads like 'oh hey, remember when you complied with the admin, we changed our minds and too bad so sad.'

Edit: To save from double posting -- I mean if this is going to be the stance, just reneg on that decision to force city/guild, cus this just feels like players getting shat on.

Haven

Definitely not a good look at all.

Imvra

I 100% agree that that was a very unfair and damaging situation to be placed in, for individuals as well as the organizations.

We cannot undo what has already happened, but I am committed to finding some kind of middle ground for the future of the orgs and their flexibility to accommodate those who are allied citizens, while remaining rooted in their encompassing city.

Teani

I agree with Xenia here. The idea was to strengthen city-guild ties, but I think that can work in other ways. Some things need to be flexible, because the situations of character change with time. The game can't afford to make people have to choose between different options that might make their game time feel somewhat miserable (for example, I like this city, but none of the guilds fit my character, or I have a long history with this guild, and want to be part of a city for ylem-fun, but I don't like this city).

Xenia

Imvra said:

I 100% agree that that was a very unfair and damaging situation to be placed in, for individuals as well as the organizations.

We cannot undo what has already happened, but I am committed to finding some kind of middle ground for the future of the orgs and their flexibility to accommodate those who are allied citizens, while remaining rooted in their encompassing city.

Well it's been a festering problem for 2 years and what I'm seeing is pussyfooting around and reactions to frustrations that aren't even solutions, just a bunch of words. That's all we've seen about this for 2 years. Hard to have an open mind, let alone trust, for some sort of reasonable decision here.

Lexen

Just ... remove the forced tie? Some guilds are going to naturally require or strongly encourage remaining in their host city, and some are going to be more open and welcoming to those from the other orgs -- we're still only at a grand total of 2 cities per tether, and if a city is only keeping members because they are the ONLY option, then that city leadership needs to seriously consider what changes they need to make to become more viable.

I could even see same tether cities having treaties with their guilds/the other city about how many crossed members they are willing to permit to ensure that their primary guilds are more strongly represented. There are a lot of neat opportunities for politics and player-driven decisions that we don't currently have because it's hard coded in.

Haven

Why not remove the ruling all together? Why is the spirit/shadow-tethering not enough of a player restriction? What are you guys trying to accomplish by sticking with city-tethering? Is this in preparation for some free-for-all war system?

Can we get any insight?

Imvra

I'm not asking you to trust, and your festering frustration is justified - it was not communicated well or in a timely fashion, and it was a very difficult position to be in.

I am not a coder, so addressing this requires me to pull someone away from one of their other projects, once we have consensus and approval from the paid staff. There will be some time after this next release to address this (as well as some other loose ends), which are my nagging priority to get done.

I cannot do anything about the festering or the last two years. I can only do something about this point going forward.

Iesid

Imvra said:

I cannot do anything about the festering or the last two years. I can only do something about this point going forward.

This is not remembered enough and sometimes results in unfair treatment to you and others that communicate with us. Bad feelings get us nowhere and I'm glad that you see it is just frustration on our part.

On a general note: my guild has lost several members over the last 8 or 9 OOC months due to a combination of my character's heavy-handed leadership and Duiran's environment. I would have lost far fewer members if I could have let people stay in the Sentinels while joining Enorian. I believe that the ruling to make a guild only open to one city in their tether was, across the board, a harmful move and the admin at the time had better options that they just weren't willing to entertain. If a guild's members don't want to be part of the home city, then that falls on the home city to address - not the admin.

Macavity

I have always thought the guilds should be tethered to the Shadow or Light sides, and never a city in itself. The population seems spread too thin to allow a forced tether between the guild and city. My guild for example is only 4 of us, as we even took a heavy hit with the Dominion Guild as well.

I do thank @Imvra for coming on here and giving us some insights and appreciate you putting this on a priority list.

I also do not understand the reason behind this move 2 years ago, maybe if we knew a little more of the why it was done, maybe we could understand it more?

Haven

Imvra said:

I'm not asking you to trust, and your festering frustration is justified - it was not communicated well or in a timely fashion, and it was a very difficult position to be in.

I am not a coder, so addressing this requires me to pull someone away from one of their other projects, once we have consensus and approval from the paid staff. There will be some time after this next release to address this (as well as some other loose ends), which are my nagging priority to get done.

I cannot do anything about the festering or the last two years. I can only do something about this point going forward.

I don't think anyone is saying it's your fault or that you specifically dropped the ball. I don't know if you're feeling attacked or what but... you seem to be missing the larger point. We're reacting primarily to the plan that doesn't actually address or say anything ->

Imvra said:

... I and the Pools are aware of and have been ideating through a compromise resolution ...

The team recognizes the problem and are discussing a compromise. Great but that's not what we're asking for. We need more than "we're working on it." or "Soon". Accountability aside, the main reason any of us even bring up the past is because we're being burned and lead on frequently enough that we need to know where this ship is heading in order to have peace of mind. We need insight and clarity. We're asking for definitive details on the plan.

Is the decision to tether guilds to cities going to reversed? If the answer is no, then when is the decision going to be enforced? If the plan is no longer to be enforce it and a third option is being developed then we need to know what that third option looks/sounds like. If there is no plan and things are still at the very beginning stages then we need to hear that admission and what the definitive steps will be to prevent such a blunder again. Your team owes that to us at the very least now. Not to sound like a unicorn but "Transparency and open communication." It's time to pay up.

Imvra

As for insights: Yes, there are always myriad solutions and each comes with their own pros and cons, both in conception, execution, and reception.

Guilds, like Gods, are not at the full whim and agency of the players that control them. They serve a role and purpose in the larger game, and guilds have always been intended to belong to cities and be part of them. This has been handled too loosely in the past, and now, too strictly.

The entire limitation will not be lifted. It is better to have a consistent expectation across organizations, than to give free reign (and rein) and have to micromanage organizations that are struggling -- although those organizations should get the needed attention to help bring them in line. While the majority of organizations were fine, there were several that were too far heavily skewed. This was damaging to their role in the larger tapestry, as well as to the city that housed them. The appeal of "well we can just move elsewhere if you don't do what we like," is nice in theory, but historically has resulted in heavy burnout and distrust between players and communities. This becomes one of those issues that looks very different from the top-down (with city health, guild health, and inter-personal health), and from the bottom-up (with agency to build and develop, to maintain the strength in org voice and values, and to create a unique niche of engagement). This, I can see, was particularly challenging and unfortunately destructive with guilds that in themselves were insular and healthy, but their placement and skew was not, for the larger picture and goal landscape of Sapience.

Iazamat

I think what people are trying to say is this: stop making the decision for us and make the decision with us.

Haven

Imvra said:

As for insights: Yes, there are always myriad solutions and each comes with their own pros and cons, both in conception, execution, and reception.

Guilds, like Gods, are not at the full whim and agency of the players that control them. They serve a role and purpose in the larger game, and guilds have always been intended to belong to cities and be part of them. This has been handled too loosely in the past, and now, too strictly.

The entire limitation will not be lifted. It is better to have a consistent expectation across organizations, than to give free reign (and rein) and have to micromanage organizations that are struggling -- although those organizations should get the needed attention to help bring them in line. While the majority of organizations were fine, there were several that were too far heavily skewed. This was damaging to their role in the larger tapestry, as well as to the city that housed them. The appeal of "well we can just move elsewhere if you don't do what we like," is nice in theory, but historically has resulted in heavy burnout and distrust between players and communities. This becomes one of those issues that looks very different from the top-down (with city health, guild health, and inter-personal health), and from the bottom-up (with agency to build and develop, to maintain the strength in org voice and values, and to create a unique niche of engagement). This, I can see, was particularly challenging and unfortunately destructive with guilds that in themselves were insular and healthy, but their placement and skew was not, for the larger picture and goal landscape of Sapience.

I... okay... let's say the players ultimately get on board and make the corrective actions - what is the intended landscape goal of Sapience? To have the cities completely independent of one another outside of conflict for resources?

Macavity

also can I add how powerless a guild is against the city they are forced to be tied to? If a city does not like what a guild is doing even in the slightest all the city needs to do is kick the guild members out and enemy to the city and prevent any access to their Guild Halls. Obviously if the guild is going completely against the city or the tether they are part of then that is cause for action on the city part, but forcing a guild to change their fundamental role playing, in my opinion, seems wrong. So long as it does not go against what the Divine have already laid out for the guild.

I would like that to be considered in the pools, give the guilds more leverage with the city.

Lexen

Imvra said:

While the majority of organizations were fine, there were several that were too far heavily skewed. This was damaging to their role in the larger tapestry, as well as to the city that housed them. The appeal of "well we can just move elsewhere if you don't do what we like," is nice in theory, but historically has resulted in heavy burnout and distrust between players and communities.

The distrust and burnout between players and communities is still there; all that the tethering has done is force them to keep all that poison in place and let it fester into hard feelings or worse, and eventually leads to them leaving either BOTH orgs to get away from one, or quitting the game altogether. Forcing round pegs into square holes doesn't make the pegs less round, and it doesn't make for a good long term fit. Guild and city development are going to move in the direction that the majority of players are interested in unless the org leaders are given some idea of where the admin wants to go, but despite ASKING for a glimpse at that larger tapestry so we can develop in the direction admin are aiming for, we're kept in the dark and have to guess at what the endgoal is.

Naturally, that puts us where we are right now: players feel stifled, railroaded, and left with the option of put up and shut up, and we aren't willing to continue going along with the plan of "trust us, we know what's best for you."

Your org leaders WANT to help move forward. We're not here to be a pain in the ass; we're here to try to improve the experience for both ourselves and the other people playing in our organizations. If Matt had told the admins that after two years of development, they could take their entire mage release and scrap it because it's not the direction he wants mages to move in, he just didn't bother telling you that earlier, there would be anger. There would be hurt feelings and a sense of having spent all of that time for nothing. There would be quality work, sweat, effort, and genuine care that would never be recognized or utilized, and you would certainly lose people over something like that.

But that's the experience of org leaders often enough to become the rule and not the exception. Why would anyone want to TRY to develop something to improve their org and the game if there is that constant, lingering threat that someone on high is going to pull the rug out from under their feet at any moment? Or worse, they're going to think they're in line because they've been doing it for years! The carpet is nailed down, glued and everyone loves it! ... and THEN it's tossed out without any communication.

tl;dr

stop trying to fix bad communication with hard coded band aides, share the end-goal overall tapestry with players, and work together with org leaders to realign things getting off track.

Alathesia

These types of discussions are not ones I like to chime in on usually, mainly because it brings back major frustrations from 2 yrs ago. Buuuut here I go..

I was the Commander of the Carnifex and Keeper of Bloodloch when this change came out. During a meeting with Admin I was informed I had to make my guild members choose between Spinesreach or Carnifex.. forced to make them choose. I was told they only had a short time to choose before they we pushed into Admin choosing for them or a state of limbo. So I did as I was told. Forced them to choose. Carnifex lost 3/4 of its members including all the Leadership we had. It has taken these last 2 yrs to rebuild the Carnifex strong once more. We had one member in the Fex that never choose, decided she was going to wait until she was forced. I brought this up in meetings and messages to Admin in which I was told it was going to be done repeatedly. To say those who never choose were 'grandfathered in' is not only a slap in the face to all those I -forced- to make a decision, but also to me because I forced them when they could have just been 'grandfathered in'.

No one is blaming @Imvra directly at this, it is more of a blame against -all- the admin. They time and time again tell us to make these decisions because they will be reinforced but they never follow through on their end. I hate to be that person to call out admin but it is how the player base feels.

I also want to say I have had admin be AMAZING as well. They have been johnny-on-the-spot with a bunch of personal/guild/city things I have needed done in the past. So this is not a post trying to throw stones at the Admin. I think at the end of the day the player base just wants follow through. If you say city/guilds need to be tethered then do it. PERIOD.

Mazzion

Macavity said:

so why is Mazzion in Bloodloch and Sciomancers?

I'm in both cities, duh.

Alathesia

Mazzion said:

Macavity said:

so why is Mazzion in Bloodloch and Sciomancers?

I'm in both cities, duh.

One city for him, and one city for his ego!

I kid, I kid.

edited:
By ego I mean awesomeness of course!

Teani

Lexen said:

Your org leaders WANT to help move forward. We're not here to be a pain in the unicorns; we're here to try to improve the experience for both ourselves and the other people playing in our organizations. If Matt had told the admins that after two years of development, they could take their entire mage release and scrap it because it's not the direction he wants mages to move in, he just didn't bother telling you that earlier, there would be anger. There would be hurt feelings and a sense of having spent all of that time for nothing. There would be quality work, sweat, effort, and genuine care that would never be recognized or utilized, and you would certainly lose people over something like that.

But that's the experience of org leaders often enough to become the rule and not the exception. Why would anyone want to TRY to develop something to improve their org and the game if there is that constant, lingering threat that someone on high is going to pull the rug out from under their feet at any moment? Or worse, they're going to think they're in line because they've been doing it for years! The carpet is nailed down, glued and everyone loves it! ... and THEN it's tossed out without any communication.

tl;dr

stop trying to fix bad communication with hard coded band aides, share the end-goal overall tapestry with players, and work together with org leaders to realign things getting off track.

This. So much this I can't even. It's why I asked for help to just keep things afloat until the revamp release, and was told, literally, "Sometimes things do get undone. That is the nature of life." Why, though? Why not put a little more effort into cooperation instead of making people fear their work might get torn down? Surprises are not necessary all the time. Far better to ensure there is a healthy community working together to improve the game for everyone.

Imvra

While I work on outlining this goal tapestry, I would like to hear from you some actionable steps that you think would improve communication and problem assessment between players and the Pools. I don't want us to remain in a place where the cart is stuck in a ditch and we spend our energy pointing fingers about who was distracting the driver and who wasn't minding the horse, instead of getting in and getting the cart back onto the road so we can get moving again. Yes, errors need to be analyzed, but we cannot only live in that moment. It's pouring, my bonnet's soaked, and the kids are hangry because Dad ate the last of the snacks, so we need to get going.

Let's go ahead and use this situation as an example to work off of? Hindsight is valuable.

Understanding that there are fundamental disagreements in the role of players, admin, and ownership of game assets, and the problems:

The Pools have determined that:

1. Guilds are part of Cities and therefore need to be clearly anchored in their parent organization. This is a non-negotiable.
   
2. Cities are becoming a larger focus of base communal engagement and involvement and are becoming more of a priority.
   
3. Some guilds veered too far away from their parent cities and their own foundations (from their root lore, root purpose, and spread of membership). This has happened for multiple reasons in multiple places, some healthy, some not.
   
4. Guilds need to be reintegrated within their parent organizations for consistent identity and mechanical presence.
   

Questions:

• How would you like us to present these problems to you, once we have identified them?
  
• How do you want us to move past the stages of argument where we simply won't see eye-to-eye? The reality is not everything will be a popularity poll, although they are useful for checking temperature. In the end, the team will need to make a decision and work with it, and some of those will not be popular. They can, and should, however, better consider and acknowledge the playerbase's experience.
  
• How do you want us to approach situations where we agree with some people but not others, which typically becomes a debate about administrative bias?
  
• How do you want us to present possible solutions to you?
  

Rasani

I'm gonna chime in here 'cause I feel like my opinion is different from other players:
I liked the city/guild tether change. I didn't at first, I was pretty concerned by it, but particularly in the Templar, it fit the rp. Templar are tied to Enorian and it's values, so if a player doesn't agree with Eno's values, why would they want to be a Templar?

I know it's not that way with each guild, but Duiran and Enorian have enough variation in what they feel is acceptable that it came up more than once. Sure, it makes for interesting rp sometimes, but more often than not, it lead to people getting pissy and saying 'well, I'm a -Duiran- Templar, so I can be more brutal and bloodlusty'. I can't speak to how it impacted the 'fex or other cities, but I think in Enorian, it was actually a positive thing. It's nice not having to work around a guild member being an enemy to the city because 'Well, MY city allows this'

While I agree that waiting two years for an answer or for uniformity was a bit inane, I don't see the purpose to bringing up how the ball was dropped for two years. Pick up the ball and start playing again. Some insight into where about they are in fixing this would be great, but I think it's easy for us to forget that the vast majority of people who are involved in admining this game are volunteers. In a perfect world, this would've been handled before a new Producer took over, since this was rolled out with an interim one. It didn't work that way, so let's just press forward.

The reality of it is, if a whole guild is upset with the way the city is, the fault is in the players, either in the city or the guild. WE create the culture of our cities, for the most part. (I think the only true exception I'd give to this is the 'fex, since it seems they weren't really handed a misson statement when they were formed and formed one that didn't have to be tied to Bloodloch, only for it all to get thrown out in this change.) In the hypothetical (at least I HOPE hypothetical) instance of a city kicking every guild member for disagreeing with a city stance, for example, that's a clear case of leadership corruption and one easily contested with admin aid.

Frankly, I think the best way to embody this "city and guilds entwined" issue would be for every city to have a system like Duiran does: one city leader from each guild. It makes the whole city tied guilds thing make sense and, in theory, prevents this concern about a whole guild being displeased by a city.