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
- 578 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
Yes, MUDs are a niche market, they've been that way for over a decade though and other MUDs have shown growth in numbers. If there's a feeling it can't or wont grow, wouldn't that make it hard to get up for work in the morning or value feedback? Isn't that a bit like fixing a leaking roof when the place is flooded? To me it seem futile.
As someone with a stake in the whole operation, your thoughts?
A company shutting down a game you like does not incline players towards playing more games from that company. (ArenaNet themselves didn't have anything to do with CoH being shut down, so I got Guild Wars 2 eventually. But I made it a personal point not to contribute to its launch out of hurt feelings towards NC Soft.)
As @Zsadist showed, there's often a big gap between a jaded player's view of the qualified aspects of a game and the bird's eye view of the quantified portion. Our corporate strategy runs on quantifiable measures: revenue, new players, retention, etc. Our game strategy, when it is not accommodating guidance from above, runs on qualified measures: Is this fun? Will this continue to be fun? How can it be more fun? That's not an us vs. them perspective by any means, and there's no ounce of criticism there. It's sort of the reality of making games. The stereotype of the "creative types" juxtaposed against the bean counters holds true.
I realize that's sort of a non-answer just as much as it's a personal reflection on my part. Feel free to follow up.
Is there ever any chance we will ever see less strict rules in Aetolia? It seems like the more rules you have, the more restrained what you can do becomes, and the harder it is to have fun in the sort of sandbox type game that Aetolia is.
I'm not trying to derail the thread, this is just my perspective, and I completely expect to likely be alone in the matter. In any case, that's what I meant.
Personally, I don't think our PK rules are complicated by any means, and we tend to follow the spirit rather than the letter anyway. Don't be a total dick. If they're in open PK situations or even reasonably adjacent to them, go to town. If they're not, have a decent reason for killing them and explain it like a human being. We haven't really had a stress test of people issuing over these rules for me to be able to say with confidence whether they're working, but I'm pretty confident that we're not stifling conflict with them. I have more problems with dismissing knee-jerk "I just died" rage issues than having to mull over whether someone violated the rules.
Is it because we lack the playerbase to require it? I do know that I've noted random Admins with no name replying to novices on NOVICE, but I always felt that the Guides were one of the best things about being a newbie, a lot easier to have a question answered, or have directions to find the answer to a question, plus they sometimes played games that resulted in rewards for novices that would move them along in their curative needs and stuff. I know that it might be simply a lack of volunteers, in which case, how would I go about volunteering for the position? I know that it's a rough position, and it's not one for the faint of heart, or the inability to handle stupid (No offense to anyone, but I'm not about to ignore the fact that even I had to ask a LOT of stupid and frustrating questions when I first played a MUD, and a lot of those questions had obvious answers.)
TL;DR
What happened to the Guides, and is there a chance to bring them back, and can I be one if there's a lack of volunteers.
One thing I feel like is a sticking point for drama, conflict and generally just a poor game experience is the level of freedom afforded to players in game in positions of authority.
There are people that will very loudly argue for in-game politics and drown out everyone else, but the fact to me seems to be that the only ones that actually enjoy it, are those who control the power structures and have solidified their hold with their friendship circles.
I recall you polled what people liked about the game and disliked about it, and overwhelmingly people disliked politics.
Personally, I'd like to see an overhaul that doesn't support the boys club mentality of running an organization, perhaps with absolute power and authority not resting in the hands of people with little integrity. Perhaps that's unrealistic at this stage given what people have come to expect, but surely you must agree that far more people have quit the game over in-game politics than joined for it.
those who control the power structures and have solidified their hold with their friendship circles.
I'm using you as a general term here.
This has always confused me. This is kinda what politics are, are they not? I mean sure, your average every day American might think that their governor is a kind and just person who got his job cause of his beliefs and the things he stands for. In reality he's probably a power hungry dirt bag who's as honest as a snake, who lied, cheated, and stole to get his job with the help of a bunch of people just as dirty as him. Together they swindled enough gullible people to take control. Or maybe he's not, and the majority empathize with what he's doing, or think he's doing a good job, and not with what you're doing, so they remain in control.
Personally, I feel if you remove the aspect of dirt bag politicians you remove some of the appeal out of it. You definitely kill a potential avenue of RP.
It's the same with death. It means nothing in the game anymore and that has sort of made things a little boring. You're not really risking anything going out to fight, but it can get boring to die over and over and you have to buy curatives etc. Any plans on possibly spicing this up as well?
A lot of the OOC negativity could be subsided if more people were willing to communicate. I point again to the Drama Triangle (a tool used in transactional analysis) for how we tend to see/feel things, when it is not the most productive avenue and it is -difficult- to change gears.
I can remember one instance of someone dirtbagging my character, and it really really didn't go well for them. Not that Ishin is an honest and upright fellow himself, but at the time a lot of people held him in high regard.
I think if your character is the uh, victim, of political shenanigans... maybe you should look at how you play and the environment you're playing in. There's a way to be a douche and not have your peers wreck you.
I remember, involve me and I
learn.
-Benjamin Franklin
Dissolving some guilds in recent times has helped, but I am still of the opinion that there are too many organizations given the size of the player base. It makes it easier for certain individuals to "own," them as well, as a smaller organization has far less potential opponents and the ones that do come along can be ejected.
If anyone wishes to debate this, feel free, but understand why I have bias, I am trying to be factual here. I'm not calling names and if I was on a different character with a less rocky political history, which I do have, I'd still be bringing up the same points.
Politics are fine. Sure, they make a few potentially awesome organizations unappealing, but all things ebb and flow.
There's a certain difficulty in completely eliminating OOC from player politics, at least on our end. Yes, we can see a lot of what goes on, but we cannot, for example, put an end to any sort of OOC appeals to other players that happens via skype/aim/what have you. I've personally seen situations as a player where I've questioned the validity of an election in the past but ultimately what can be done if you can't gather proof? That's sort of the situation we have here. We can't just act on a hunch.
Edit:
I also want to address concerns about number of organizations, and please keep in mind that what I'm saying is purely my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of other imms or Razmael/Oleis in particular. While on paper I do sort of agree that we might have one or two guilds more than we currently need, I feel it's important that we also acknowledge that we do rather have a need to cater to the archetypes that people will want to play. We probably couldn't, for example, eliminate either of the two mage guilds purely due to numbers of players in the guilds because mage is an archetype that should be available to both sides of the game. Likewise, we couldn't axe the templars, carnifex, or sentinels, because they all fill specific niches in the game world. Ultimately, we don't have much room to cut out guilds without eliminating an archetype that some people will find attractive, even if there is -some- overlap in places, and there certainly is, but I don't know that this is the place to discuss what archetypes each of our guilds falls into.
The sad thing is, even with evidence, there is no point saying anything, or doing anything. Having tried, it accomplishes nothing as no matter how much noise a player makes, they have no real power to make a difference if those in charge chose to ignore and dismiss it. This is very similar to how a guild leader, surrounded by friends, can block out objectors completely. They only need to be able to win an election by a single point, kick the people that opposed them, and their power is intact and absolute. Whether it is the intent or not, players can feel pushed away from the game when they see no avenue for improvement. It's not as simple as joining another guild either when that guild's world view can represent the entirety of your character. You can reinvent yourself as many have, but there is often an unwillingness to do so if you've invested so much and instead people fade away as they have many times before.
In either situation, the only real power the player has is their decision just not to play. Not to play with certain players, not to spend money on the game, and not to encourage their friends to play. While in the short term, if someone quits not having to deal with them could be considered a positive for those leading, it has a snowball effect. For something like Aetolia, growing through word of mouth is important, and I think dwindling numbers can be attributed to players upset with how things are handled using all the above abilities to simply not support the game.
I want to make it clear that while I have issues with the game, I've played it since high school and I am now in my late 20s. I like the world, I have a lot of great memories. I do not wish to tear it down completely, but I do wish for it to evolve into a place that benefits everybody, not just a select few and those who tolerate them.
Signing on to Aetolia comes with an unspoken agreement that your circumstances may change. Your actions have consequences, maybe even consequences you feel unwarranted. It's our job as administrators to protect your real-money investment as much as possible (hello multiclass changes) and make sure that the mechanical restrictions are as evenly-enforced as possible. Outside of that, I think it's pretty tacky for us to interfere.
I don't really know the case for you specifically, @Rowena, and I wouldn't try to lay it out in a forum post if I did, but I think all of us can identify with aspects of what I'm describing. I can't even begin to imagine the shady back-alley arrangements that players, mortal and God alike, have had in the past. But all we can do is try to deal with them as they arise. Building a continual grudge in your brain against the idea of a political structure because you've never fit into it fuels that exclusion complex. If it's warranted, then it's warranted. But I wouldn't go so far as to assume it's applicable for the average bear.
It wouldn't be an issue if a player could gather like minded individuals and build their own guild but they can't. The guild is there, it's world view is there, yet it's not yours to play with, unless you play how certain individuals wish for you to play.
I'm not sure what part of that is worth persevering with in it's current state. My post was not as personal as can maybe be read into it, but it feels that way because it's a story almost every player has. Many, many players have quit over it, many players that remain active do not attempt to grow the community out of sheer ambivalence, in fact, I've known multiple people that have encouraged people they knew not to play knowing how much of a resoundingly negative experience it can be. I feel it should be the responsibility of all in-charge to try approach the game from all angles, and look at player grievances, recognize patterns and work on improving player experience.
Edit -
I missed the last bit but I have fit into the political structure into the past. My character, this character, is over three hundred years old and it isn't my only character. My RP has changed over the years, as has my personality as a player, as everyone's does as you grow and mature. You haven't been a part of Aetolia for that long. I played Aetolia when the Morgun was the Black Forest and North of Trees was North of Thera. There have been a lot of administrators in that time. A lot of gods. Many I remember quite favourably. You're making some very sweeping assumptions to assume you know more than the tip of me personally. This isn't about some grudge I have built into my head, this is about me trying to deconstruct a situation because I want to see things get better.
Beyond that, what you're describing is the entire point of having an organizational leader: they exercise their vision for how the guild(/house/city, etc.) should operate. We do indeed have a hand in the large-scale direction: we led the Vampire houses toward the archetypes we wanted, and we declined to help a couple guilds make dramatic changes in their stories. What you're describing, spun a different way, is that the majority of the guild (however they were compiled) favors the way the leader is operating, and you do not.
It, like many of the issues we've debated in this thread, comes down to perception. The "many players" who quit over organizational issues almost always have another story behind their exits, and they are never as numerous as their wielders seem to think. When I hear that multiple players are "warning" potential newcomers, I don't see a moral crusader helping his friends -- I see a toxic player who can't get over his hurt feelings. If your argument is against leaders who curry favor with their friends and cling to their power, how is the solution to drive like-minded potential players away? If one wants to fix a game, he doesn't avoid it or boycott it; he goes in and makes positive attempts to change. (Which seems to be what you're doing right now! High five!)
To directly address the start your own guild thing -- I usually try to temper my reactions to things other games do, because I don't want anyone to think I'm casting doubt on their decisions or talking trash about my coworkers. But good LORD guild charters over there were a mistake. Nearly every guild that popped up was a knee-jerk rage reaction to someone's losing an election, and nearly all of them became exactly the same thing they were purported to prevent: insular, masturbatory clubs without anything substantive to make them unique. A Druid guild based entirely in the city springs to mind as a particularly sour example. In whatever ways we might be right or wrong in this discussion, I can assure you that player-created guilds wouldn't be a good thing.
For intervention to work, it needs to be at least relatively impartial, which requires a set of divine to act as mediators making decisions objectively. Look at it like a court of law, the judge doesn't pick the plaintiff with the nice smile. They analyse the facts and situation with an overall goal of preserving society.
A "majority," can be one person more than the other guys. That example is also heavily flawed as it's only based on the members in the guild at the time, not the many that are no longer in it and see no way back into it. Many organizations have hit that stage where it's simply a group of friends, no outsiders, owning and passing around ownership of what is part of the game.
There are not a lot of people playing. It can be placed down to a number of things. I suggested one. Nothing is ever black and white.
I don't doubt you see such players as toxic but for the record I don't see a moral crusader. I just see someone being honest. No amount of crucifixion changes the fact they're entitled to an opinion, and that there may be others that care. There may not, but you don't know, and that's part of business 101. Think of a review score for a product. There will be people that love it, people that hate it, ultimately it doesn't matter if who made it thinks it's a 10 / 10 if the person reviewing it doesn't as they're the writing the review. That review could mean nothing, we don't all care what a certain publication thinks, but some do, and that might lose a sale. We all have reviewers we disagree with but the same as if you own a business, you do your best to treat the customers you don't like as well as the ones you do. They're the customer and customers have friends. Friends who might have a very different experience with you. You can't win every time, but that doesn't stop you making an effort to be professional and hold your head up high.
This really isn't as personal as you're implying things to be, I think you're assuming far too much. Rowena is a fairly bitter and impulsive person. I can be, it comes from somewhere I guess, but at the same time, I'm not Rowena. I have a successful career and as much as I find Rowena's explosive fits amusing, I wouldn't have it if I did that kind of stuff in real life. I think you'd find if you ever actually sat in a room with me that I generally fairly amicable and open to debate. Wires may get crossed when you speak to people that may have known others, but ones impression of somebody is a caricature and people tend to change drastically in their formative years and early adulthood.