What kind of community structure do you prefer?

13»

Comments

  • LexenLexen Member Posts: 30 ✭✭✭
    Other (Post in the thread)
    Mjoll said:

    Lexen said:

    ... Does anyone use that system for anything other than noting who's in a specific leadership position?

    The Carnifex does ^_^ We have some little RP paths in the guild that get you a position with a title, pays out a little gold and/or credits, I've made a position for people who point out typos in scrolls "Administrative Assistant" and ask them to fix it to get them involved. Crafters, producers, fighters, religious figures, WE'VE GOT IT ALL, BABY!.

    Positions are one of my FAVORITE things to come out of the new guild systems and I would VERY much like to keep them ^_^
    oh, I want to keep them too! I just also want to have 10 guildranks.
    MjollOonaghBenedictoSwara
  • VyxsisVyxsis VyxsisMember Posts: 477 ✭✭✭✭
    I prefer the Houses similar to Achaea
    Aloli said:

    To help some of the confusion and upheaval in Duiran and bring some stability, I sat down with the other two GMs and proposed a 'cross-guild' training system in city and it seemed to foster some respect and understanding in each guild for the other two but also when done it would involve the city in guild affairs because then a citizen who underwent the training of all three and learned all three guilds, the guilds and city would honor them - it would be a city celebration of their unity and readiness to stand behind it and its cause or mission.

    i just wanna say... this is cool as hell. i like this idea a lot.



    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
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (wolf Howl)
    An Atzob cultist says, "Is a shamatato as tasty as a potato?"
    (Tells): From afar, Mephistoles hisses harshly to you, "Hey baby, show me your ovipositor?"
    The mighty Jy'Barrak Golgotha opens his maw, catches the glowing spear in his many jagged teeth, and chomps down. The Divine spear breaks with a noise like thunder, shards toppling from the Emperor's jaws. "OM NOM NOM!" He declares, then spits the last of the ruined weapon from his lips.




    Aloli
  • CoureneCourene Member Posts: 3
    I love the idea of having 10 guild ranks but making full membership at rank 5, with the option of getting 5 more ranks for those that want the challenge. The only concern I have with the letting guilds/houses if we decide on that, open to all classes no matter what city. Is that there have been times when two cities on the same side, have fought between themselves, and so you'd have a person that's in a duiran guild for instance like the Shamans but are an Enorian citizen. They have to pick which one they will stand with. I mean it might make for some interesting RP. I recall a character I had that was part of the Carnifex that was stuck in the middle of something similar, that was back when the Carnifex weren't technically part of any city? and Spinesreach was fighting with the Vampires, and so I went to a lesser, and I was told to kill the ones from Bloodloch, but some of those people were vampires in my guild, so I was accused of murdering my own guildmates but they were enemies of my city. I don't recall the exact details but I do recall being confused on who I was suppose to attack and then being in trouble for attackin fellow guildmates even though they were enemies in that lesser. Again.. RP wise it might be interesting. Just my thoughts on it is all.
  • IazamatIazamat Member Posts: 113 ✭✭✭
    Full membership should remain at rank 2. People should not have to jump through hoops for class, that should remain something people do for their own enjoyment.
    RijettaVyxsisTeaniTenshyo
  • CoureneCourene Member Posts: 3
    Well in Achaea to be a full member of the house, you had to reach a certain house rank. Like they have HNT for those that want to talk on guild but haven't gotten full house membership, if you do have full house membership, you'd speak on HT. I apologize for not making that clear before, I was only referrin to full guild membership not including class, or the ability to keep class or have full membership in the class
    Iazamat
  • VyxsisVyxsis VyxsisMember Posts: 477 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 16
    I prefer the Houses similar to Achaea
    Lexen said:

    I can't suggest things that are realistic and impactful if there isn't regular communication between the Admin team and org leaders. I'm not talking we need you to check in with us every day and hold our hands, but I -am- saying that there should be comfortable dialog going on. I shouldn't feel like I'm being a massive drain on your day just for asking a question, and admin should be ASKING org leaders on a semi-regular basis about what's going on in their org. One hour a month would be a reasonable start, in my opinion. Imagine how much LESS work the admin will have to do if they start empowering those of us with an interest in helping to actually act instead of sitting on our hands and hoping?

    omg this this this
    Mjoll said:

    Lexen said:

    ... Does anyone use that system for anything other than noting who's in a specific leadership position?

    The Carnifex does ^_^ We have some little RP paths in the guild that get you a position with a title, pays out a little gold and/or credits, I've made a position for people who point out typos in scrolls "Administrative Assistant" and ask them to fix it to get them involved. Crafters, producers, fighters, religious figures, WE'VE GOT IT ALL, BABY!.

    Positions are one of my FAVORITE things to come out of the new guild systems and I would VERY much like to keep them ^_^
    indorani did, as well. we had sub-ranks for progression, things that denoted whether a particular ritual has been undergone, achievement-based positions, etc. lots of stuff.

    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
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (wolf Howl)
    An Atzob cultist says, "Is a shamatato as tasty as a potato?"
    (Tells): From afar, Mephistoles hisses harshly to you, "Hey baby, show me your ovipositor?"
    The mighty Jy'Barrak Golgotha opens his maw, catches the glowing spear in his many jagged teeth, and chomps down. The Divine spear breaks with a noise like thunder, shards toppling from the Emperor's jaws. "OM NOM NOM!" He declares, then spits the last of the ruined weapon from his lips.




    OonaghCoureneAloliLeana
  • KynaKyna Victoria, AustraliaMember, Immortal Posts: 229 Immortal
    edited May 16
    I have said it before, to players who have been impacted by decisions that seem left field, in meetings with players when I’m trying to help solve a problem and on previous forum threads. 

    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.
    OonaghVyxsisAloli
  • VyxsisVyxsis VyxsisMember Posts: 477 ✭✭✭✭
    I prefer the Houses similar to Achaea
    Kyna said:

    I have said it before, to players who have been impacted by decisions that seem left field, in meetings with players when I’m trying to help solve a problem and on previous forum threads. 

    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.

    yeah, totes, and i appreciate that. i apologize, as well - i made a little edit at the end of my post, but so it's clearer, i should've finished reading the thread before writing a novel. if i had, i would've seen your previous post which largely addresses what i said.

    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. :}
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (wolf Howl)
    An Atzob cultist says, "Is a shamatato as tasty as a potato?"
    (Tells): From afar, Mephistoles hisses harshly to you, "Hey baby, show me your ovipositor?"
    The mighty Jy'Barrak Golgotha opens his maw, catches the glowing spear in his many jagged teeth, and chomps down. The Divine spear breaks with a noise like thunder, shards toppling from the Emperor's jaws. "OM NOM NOM!" He declares, then spits the last of the ruined weapon from his lips.




    RobynAloli
  • TinaTina Member, Guildmaster Posts: 77 ✭✭✭
    I want to stick with the familiar Guild structure
    In my opinion, just getting something new isn't going to fix anything. Whatever new system is implemented, it's a fact that due to people taking a break, other projects coming up, limited number of people and work hours, and other concerns the admin won't be able to give every org their full attention and help them out all the time. Even if we combine them together and lower the amount of different orgs, will still be too many for that. On top of that, you will eventually get player leaders that either have a bad time leading that org, or take it in a direction or RP style that totally clashes with your own. They'll have downward spirals and stagnate. A new system won't fix it, it's just a matter of time before it gets stuck up in the same mess that brings down player run orgs. Not to be pessimistic, just it happens in the current system. And I can't imagine any new system that has player run orgs that would be immune to the faults our current ones have. Rather then get something new that will maybe promote activity for a few months to a year before simmering down again, I'd rather put efforts into fixing what we already have and polishing that. I don't believe guild's are so broken they are beyond repair. And replacing them with something new would only be helpful in the short term, long term we'd be in the same spot, and I feel it may even be detrimental because we'll stop looking to fix the flaws in the current system short term that will almost assuredly pop up again down the road in whatever new system is put in.

    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.
    AloliSwaraVyxsis
  • TeaniTeani Evening Sky SwedenMember Posts: 2,051 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I want to hit agree on @Lexen's post a few more times, at least. It expresses what I, with my mushy it-is-grading-season-and-I-no-longer-want-to-function brain, wanted to say with much more eloquence.



    Robyn
  • LeanaLeana Member Posts: 225 ✭✭✭
    I prefer the Houses similar to Achaea
    I don't like guilds for the same reason I don't like any organization(City/House/Clan) - Leadership eventually stagnates to the point that any potential active leader is smothered by enough wanting to keep the quiet, status quo. The counter arguments are always the same, "Make the changes yourself!" or "Contest and take over, then fix things!" But those are unrealistic when the leader, like any tyrant, has placed people around them that are benefiting and happy with the way things are - the peasants can just go elsewhere. New members enter with energy and are burnt out by the lack of activity.

    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.


    PhoeneciaVyxsis
  • SwaraSwara Member, Bot Posts: 10
    I want to stick with the familiar Guild structure
    Leana said:


    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.

    I would be on board with this sort of thing. I think people get comfortable in leadership roles and that contributes to stagnation. Also, people who want to contest feel like they need a valid reason to do so or others will get upset. If there were more regular contentions (not like every week or something crazy, maybe 6 RL months or so) then I think people would be more hopeful about obtaining leadership roles. Also it would give more people who want to be in these positions the opportunity to try for them and encourage current leaders to stay active and communicative with their members to keep the job.
    ZailaVyxsis
  • KalinaarKalinaar Member Posts: 128 ✭✭✭
    I am open to trying something new
    Rhyot said:

    So.... I'm of the opinion that we are in severe need of a destruction of a lot of orgs. At most, we have 60-70 people online.... and yet we somehow have 4 cities. At most, that's about 15 people per city (though we all know that this is actually in no accurate as some cities have more than others).

    I honestly feel we can merge into 2 cities and just maintain the guilds on the tether city that is made. Bloodloch can get blown up by the volcano, Spinesreach can be covered in an avalanche, Duiran can get crushed by the Great Oak tree falling, Enorian (not sure how they'd get blown up since they've been blown up 2 times now)... and then new cities are made and the guilds just merge into the 2 new cities (one light/one shadow). This consolidates everyone who want to be part of a city and the guilds have a single organization they belong to.

    Additionally, you could destroy guilds in the merge that fail to meet some sort of activity requirement and then just call it a day. At most, 2-3 guilds will be destroyed. This will leave it to 2 cities and maybe 10 guilds (if not less). The more we consolidate, the easier it would be on an admin level.

    But I'm all for trying something new.

    I agree with Rhyot entirely. We have way too many orgs for the current population. ALL muds are experiencing a decline in population and IRE muds are just doing rather well compared to all the rest, but the decline is still there and can't be ignored. Most muds have between 0-15 people online. To stave off this decline we need to make sure we keep our newbies that are starting Aetolia fresh for the first time. To do that, they need to be welcomed by orgs that have plenty of people in them. Nothing could be worse than a newb joining the game and having zero people in their guild/house for a large portion of the time they play. In addition to that, we need to be able to keep the people we have. I think that goes back to what Haven said about org stagnation.. another issue yes, but it is undeniably linked to losing current players which contributes to the health of the mud.

    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.
  • LeanaLeana Member Posts: 225 ✭✭✭
    I prefer the Houses similar to Achaea
    @Kalinaar That was the plan, actually. Or what I assume was the plan with Albedos. It didn't take well with people. You're essentially proposing destroying Aetolia to form Aetolia New! Which wouldn't really keep players as force them to decide if this was the limit on their tolerance of admin and IRE run games and they'd probably just give up for good.

    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.


    VyxsisSwara
  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 172 ✭✭✭
    I am open to trying something new
    Yeah, I know if I had to level and write a whole new character and stuff, I wouldn't bother. I stay because I'm attached to the story I've already written and want to see where it'll head. There's a reason I don't do the alt thing.
    SwaraFezzix
  • LimLim Member Posts: 596 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 21
    It looks like there are two issues here, which I would characterise as 'hardware' and 'software' problems.

    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.
    HavenXeniaFezzix
Sign In or Register to comment.