Vadi2012-02-21 04:38:58
I'm not convinced that MMO is the best example either: http://www.eurogamer...-crisis-article
Edit: btw, nobody's really agreed that the population has dwindled, besides dodgy stats. A pretty great Special report is coming through right now as well, that, by listening to player feedback, is deleting Choke!
(not that I'm taking the opposite side here. I'm just unconvinced by the proofs presented)
Edit: btw, nobody's really agreed that the population has dwindled, besides dodgy stats. A pretty great Special report is coming through right now as well, that, by listening to player feedback, is deleting Choke!
(not that I'm taking the opposite side here. I'm just unconvinced by the proofs presented)
Unknown2012-02-21 04:46:09
Vadi:
I'm not convinced that MMO is the best example either: http://www.eurogamer...-crisis-article
Edit: btw, nobody's really agreed that the population has dwindled, besides dodgy stats. A pretty great Special report is coming through right now as well, that, by listening to player feedback, is deleting Choke!
That article is from June of last year, and as you'll see, is exactly what I have said:
talkans:
EVE lost overall subscriptions for the first time since 2003. That's pretty amazing for an MMO in today's market, to continually add more subscribers every year since its inception in 2003. But when CCP, the company behind EVE Online, decided the players wanted more glitz and frills, the players left. CCP was forced to trim staff by 20% and really buckle down and work on the things that mattered the most, and sure enough, players returned.
Why couldn't Lusternia have realized that too?
So yeah, it's the perfect MMO to use an example. That article talks about an instance where the developers brought out a very expensive item that had to be originally purchased with real world money without giving the players any indication of the price points that would be features in their cash shop. Players, upset with this tactic and the lack of iterations on previous expansions, rioted in game and let their subscriptions lapse in protest.
The developers, seeing that their players were upset, went into repair mode and have since adopted a method of absolute clarity for future goals. Players have been very happy since then. I'm not sure why you're saying it's not a good example, as it seems to fit the bill pretty well.
And Vadi brings up a good point by agreeing with what we've been saying - when player feedback is listened to, the end result is generally a good thing for the players. I don't know why Eventru would say that they would refuse to do something so simple.
Saran2012-02-21 04:48:12
Eventru:
I'll be the evil admin that will say that if you expect us to announce that we're planning on releasing new cities, guilds, archetypes, systems of conflicts, or are planning new skillsets, reduxing old systems, and then expect to lay it out for the masses to critique and comment on before we put it in (which is precisely what several of you are asking for!), the answer is an unequivocal 'no'.
Your assumptions and groupings are incorrect.
Families and demigods are the best two examples, these are changes that were
We don't want surprises about these, we want to know what is coming up. The administrative cone of silence is understandable regarding events and new skills, but other times it is not.
Eventru:
Call it what you want, I suppose. In a way it is off-handed, because it goes counter to how we manage everything we've done to date, and the request itself seems wildly out of place. It's also fairly off-handed because I've been watching you insult myself, other administrators, and the administration at large pretty virulently.
Time and again we've attempted your proposed 'design by committee' mentality, or 'review by committee of players' as it would be in this instance, and every time it's failed miserably, with casualties like monks, nexus world conflict and more taking quite some time to be put back together. While I recognize that at times we can be distant from the 'nitty gritty' of combat, I've watched time and time again the partisanship of players cloud judgment, even in such bipartisan comittees (see the Aeromancer/Pyromancer reports). While it's nice to believe in the game design equivalent of the Invisible Hand theory, Adam Smith can kick rocks.
Game Design 101 states that the most valuable resource any game design has is play testing. Even if all you have is a scrap of paper illustrating your concept, you play test. Your playtesters will break your system, they will tell you if it is enjoyable or not, they will give you the feedback you need to make something truly great, and no good game can be developed without rigorous playtesting. (Alpha and Beta testing are also considered playtests but playtesting is not just Alpha or Beta testing)
If you do not recognise EVE then I direct you to WoW, RIFT, SWTOR, FFIV, and most other games you can name. Your examples revolve around situations where players have something to gain by stacking the deck, yet do not touch on situations where they do not. And as designers you should recognise the situations where you must take this into account when receiving feedback.
Vadi2012-02-21 04:52:19
No, I did not say that when player feedback is listened to, the result is a generally good thing for the players. I only showed an example of the Admins listening. I don't think that deleting Choke is a generally good thing either.
I've manage projects and I'd side with Eventru - you listen for feedback, but you do not do everything that's said. There are always conflicting points of interests. Given how long Lusternia is in running, it's pretty well-managed while at it, too. Certainly not without some infuriating faults, but certainly not deserving the large overstatements and harsh critique from someone who hasn't shown an example themselves of how to do it right (not an example of others of how they did it right).
I've manage projects and I'd side with Eventru - you listen for feedback, but you do not do everything that's said. There are always conflicting points of interests. Given how long Lusternia is in running, it's pretty well-managed while at it, too. Certainly not without some infuriating faults, but certainly not deserving the large overstatements and harsh critique from someone who hasn't shown an example themselves of how to do it right (not an example of others of how they did it right).
Unknown2012-02-21 04:58:22
Eh, letting the players know what is coming and gathering feedback is generally good. However, letting the passengers actually steer the ship is wrought with peril.
It almost essentially entails finding a sub-set of players to be the "voice" of the player base in some way or another, and there is no safeguard regarding conflicts of interest between objectivity and what they are doing in game.
Lusternia's system isn't perfect, and my (well-reasoned|meandering|rawr-induced-raving) posts, well, obviously I don't keep my opinons to myself very well. However, by and large the admin handle things well, or at least try to be fair to everyone, and it is encouraging to me to see a healthy dose of skepeticism on their part when presented with a "the people demand thus!" issue.
Overall, I feel the game strikes decently close to a difficult moving target. Players aren't just ignored, but neither do the inmates get to run the asylum.
It almost essentially entails finding a sub-set of players to be the "voice" of the player base in some way or another, and there is no safeguard regarding conflicts of interest between objectivity and what they are doing in game.
Lusternia's system isn't perfect, and my (well-reasoned|meandering|rawr-induced-raving) posts, well, obviously I don't keep my opinons to myself very well. However, by and large the admin handle things well, or at least try to be fair to everyone, and it is encouraging to me to see a healthy dose of skepeticism on their part when presented with a "the people demand thus!" issue.
Overall, I feel the game strikes decently close to a difficult moving target. Players aren't just ignored, but neither do the inmates get to run the asylum.
Enyalida2012-02-21 05:03:12
Nothing about 'warn players about upcoming mechanics' means 'do anything that players tell you to'. It just means that if there are problems players have with something that's going to come out they can air them and the admins can consider possible issues before things hit actual play, instead of having to scramble and patch things afterwards.
EDIT: Getting active feedback on an idea as you develop it can go a long way towards easing tension that may arise when people ask you to go back to the drawing board when you whip out the final product.
EDIT: Getting active feedback on an idea as you develop it can go a long way towards easing tension that may arise when people ask you to go back to the drawing board when you whip out the final product.
Neos2012-02-21 05:05:42
Rainydays:
the inmates get to run the asylum.
But sometimes they get to affect others medication.
Unknown2012-02-21 05:08:13
@Talkans - You say we should demand respect as players, but we should also respect the Admin. Again we make up the game but without them there would have never been a game for us in the first place.
Unknown2012-02-21 05:12:13
GealbhanBheag:
@Talkans - You say we should demand respect as players, but we should also respect the Admin. Again we make up the game but without them there would have never been a game for us in the first place.
To a point, I agree. I think we should respect that the administration has created this game (something I considered posting about earlier, but I find that overly long posts are usually skimmed), and that we get to play in it. As I said, I've volunteered on an IRE game before and have headed a department, so I know that players are not sunshine and roses all the time - take me for example - but they're also not idiots who are happy with being played the fool. Personally, I don't feel that the administration have earned much of my respect and, as such, I do not give much of it back. The benefit of being a player is that you don't have to earn the respect of the administration. You gain it automatically. I feel like Lusternia's developers have forgotten this or have never known it.
Riluna2012-02-21 05:19:36
talkans:
To a point, I agree. I think we should respect that the administration has created this game (something I considered posting about earlier, but I find that overly long posts are usually skimmed), and that we get to play in it. As I said, I've volunteered on an IRE game before and have headed a department, so I know that players are not sunshine and roses all the time - take me for example - but they're also not idiots who are happy with being played the fool. Personally, I don't feel that the administration have earned much of my respect and, as such, I do not give much of it back. The benefit of being a player is that you don't have to earn the respect of the administration. You gain it automatically. I feel like Lusternia's developers have forgotten this or have never known it.
The arrogance of this astounds me. You are entitled to respect, but everyone else must earn yours?
Respect is a two-way street, always. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the admin, or other players. If you feel disrespected, the answer is not to be disrespectful in turn. Else, where does it begin?
Svorai2012-02-21 05:27:06
@ Talkans, not sure who you are, but constructive criticism is constructive, criticism for the sake of it is not welcome. The game is fun, is handled well for the most part, and many of us appreciate the work that the Admin do. There have been some not-so-great ideas, but hell, we are human, even the Divine.
Anyway, on to that constructive criticism!
I haven't played other MUDs, so perhaps this is what people were referring to with the 'war system'... nonetheless, I'll throw in my idea.
The main grievance with 'winners always winning with no reason to give up' and the 'losers always losing and finding it hard to have a reason to fight back'... is that there is no real reason. There have been reasons in the past, but they haven't worked, or were too much (village feelings and government types meaning Glomdoring would often raid villages, weakenings, etc). Now we have things that give perks (domoths, flares, villages), but because they are 'perks' not 'must haves', there's no real cause to get behind. I've thought about how we could implement this desperate purpose we seem to lack (seem to - I'm not complaining much, but then maybe I'm on the wrong side of the conflict!), but of course, anything significant that we might suggest would be a pain to implement.
When I give newbie BTs the tour of the Black Nest, I get tobrainwash explain to them how and why Glomdoring is what it is and why we will succeed in our purpose - taking over the Basin, more or less. I like to make sure people feel like they have a purpose in the Grand Scheme of Things, that way they have something to work towards and contribute to the org.
Anyway, my idea was...
To further this 'the Wyrd will take over all' thing, it would be neat if we were able to fight to bring our enemies into submission, that is, vassalage, much like how lesser houses banner to great houses. That way, such and such an org would be able to say "Ok, that's enough, we send peace envoys - we'll be your vassal" which, considering how much venom there is between various orgs, would make more sense than making them your 'ally'. I think this idea would work both ways and give the 'losing side' more reason to fight back, get better, and overcome their position instead of going 'well, they can kill our demon lords, we'll just raise them later, I'll qq because there's no point'.
"For the Wyrd"
"For the Light"
"For Freedom"
We all have a cause to get behind, just need a real reason to stand behind it.
I don't know. An idea, maybe not a good one, but there. :)
Anyway, on to that constructive criticism!
I haven't played other MUDs, so perhaps this is what people were referring to with the 'war system'... nonetheless, I'll throw in my idea.
The main grievance with 'winners always winning with no reason to give up' and the 'losers always losing and finding it hard to have a reason to fight back'... is that there is no real reason. There have been reasons in the past, but they haven't worked, or were too much (village feelings and government types meaning Glomdoring would often raid villages, weakenings, etc). Now we have things that give perks (domoths, flares, villages), but because they are 'perks' not 'must haves', there's no real cause to get behind. I've thought about how we could implement this desperate purpose we seem to lack (seem to - I'm not complaining much, but then maybe I'm on the wrong side of the conflict!), but of course, anything significant that we might suggest would be a pain to implement.
When I give newbie BTs the tour of the Black Nest, I get to
Anyway, my idea was...
To further this 'the Wyrd will take over all' thing, it would be neat if we were able to fight to bring our enemies into submission, that is, vassalage, much like how lesser houses banner to great houses. That way, such and such an org would be able to say "Ok, that's enough, we send peace envoys - we'll be your vassal" which, considering how much venom there is between various orgs, would make more sense than making them your 'ally'. I think this idea would work both ways and give the 'losing side' more reason to fight back, get better, and overcome their position instead of going 'well, they can kill our demon lords, we'll just raise them later, I'll qq because there's no point'.
"For the Wyrd"
"For the Light"
"For Freedom"
We all have a cause to get behind, just need a real reason to stand behind it.
I don't know. An idea, maybe not a good one, but there. :)
Unknown2012-02-21 05:30:57
Riluna:
The arrogance of this astounds me. You are entitled to respect, but everyone else must earn yours?
Respect is a two-way street, always. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the admin, or other players. If you feel disrespected, the answer is not to be disrespectful in turn. Else, where does it begin?
I don't believe that everyone else should earn mine at all. I think the admin should. And I think they should earn yours, too. Again, if being brutally critical is disrespectful, then there's a disconnect somewhere, and the fault doesn't lie with the players.
Saran2012-02-21 05:32:32
Svorai:
@ Talkans, not sure who you are, but constructive criticism is constructive, criticism for the sake of it is not welcome. The game is fun, is handled well for the most part, and many of us appreciate the work that the Admin do. There have been some not-so-great ideas, but hell, we are human, even the Divine.
I find his criticisms to be primarily listings of what the admin are doing wrong in his eyes. Perhaps harsh, but years on the forums does give a specific view of how to get points across effectively.
Anyway, my idea was...
To further this 'the Wyrd will take over all' thing, it would be neat if we were able to fight to bring our enemies into submission, that is, vassalage, much like how lesser houses banner to great houses. That way, such and such an org would be able to say "Ok, that's enough, we send peace envoys - we'll be your vassal" which, considering how much venom there is between various orgs, would make more sense than making them your 'ally'. I think this idea would work both ways and give the 'losing side' more reason to fight back, get better, and overcome their position instead of going 'well, they can kill our demon lords, we'll just raise them later, I'll qq because there's no point'.
While interesting, I feel that this would not be good. It makes more sense for villages or territories, but player orgs being forced into such situations will not end well.
Unknown2012-02-21 05:32:38
Svorai:
@ Talkans, not sure who you are, but constructive criticism is constructive, criticism for the sake of it is not welcome. The game is fun, is handled well for the most part, and many of us appreciate the work that the Admin do. There have been some not-so-great ideas, but hell, we are human, even the Divine.
I don't know why you think I'm criticizing for the sake of it. I've offered quite a few ideas and examples that I feel would help. If that's not being constructive, I don't know what is.
Unknown2012-02-21 05:39:25
I feel that the number one factor impeding older player retention is stagnation; the politics and conflicts of the basin do not change with nearly often enough.
I would prefer mechanics on villages and bubbles be edited so that the more an org already controls, the more difficult it is for them to gain control of others; possible in the case of outnumbering or outclassing their foes, but enough to swing the tide in a close battle, with more penalties if they hold many of them for a long time. This would help prevent long term domination by a single faction, and prevents villages and bubbles from acting as a double win.
I also feel that there should be incentive to break and change alliances occasionally. I find it exciting to have to re-evaluate alligences and make IC arguments for whose side to take. Further, I feel that from an OOC perspective it is FAR more healthy for the player base for players from all orgs to take turns being allies and enemies. Having to fight alongside your former enemies does a lot to reduce tension between players.
I would prefer mechanics on villages and bubbles be edited so that the more an org already controls, the more difficult it is for them to gain control of others; possible in the case of outnumbering or outclassing their foes, but enough to swing the tide in a close battle, with more penalties if they hold many of them for a long time. This would help prevent long term domination by a single faction, and prevents villages and bubbles from acting as a double win.
I also feel that there should be incentive to break and change alliances occasionally. I find it exciting to have to re-evaluate alligences and make IC arguments for whose side to take. Further, I feel that from an OOC perspective it is FAR more healthy for the player base for players from all orgs to take turns being allies and enemies. Having to fight alongside your former enemies does a lot to reduce tension between players.
Saran2012-02-21 05:53:30
I have been considering the development mechanic. I am unsure how interesting this would be but it is an idea.
- Switch off revolts.
- Introduce the ability for each political structure to steal villages (conquest might involve slaughter, religious influencing, commercial questing)
- While an org is in control of a village they are able to designate a member to develop it. Each village has it's own developments as do the orgs, both of which cost an org its own unique resource. The more developed a village is, the more resistant they are to being swayed away.
- Provide method for generating resource (intersections or something that involves active participation)
Could be terrible, removes revolts, but hey might be interesting. Each village might have its own unique benefit in amongst general ones that make them attractive to other orgs, but the cost to maintain control of so many villages could grow out of control very quickly and leave them up for grabs.
Ssaliss2012-02-21 06:00:44
I find it very interesting when people say that the admins change things without player feedback. While there certainly have been such cases (such as affinity), there are also plenty of cases where that is not true. For instance, the most recent (relatively major) change: stockroom limits. While it was, in the beginning, a major blow, I feel we're far better off after the change. Not only are shops less of a "sell everything you can get your hands on", there were also other changes that came through at the same time, and through player feedback. The most dramatic of those were the liquid rift, of course. There is also the fact that you can now store tarot cards, runes and motes in your rift, whereas before you had to store them in rune bags, tarot decks and dream catchers. In addition, they changed the vial runes to make them massively more useful, to the point where they actually sold out shortly after the change. Sure, the changes to stockrooms and the introduction of the liquid rift might not seem linked at first glance, but if it weren't for the change to stockrooms and the discussion that ensued over it, I doubt we would have it today. So saying the admins never listen to players despite plenty of cases where they do is very short-sighted.
And that is all I will say on this topic.
And that is all I will say on this topic.
Unknown2012-02-21 06:03:47
Ssaliss:
I find it very interesting when people say that the admins change things without player feedback. While there certainly have been such cases (such as affinity), there are also plenty of cases where that is not true. For instance, the most recent (relatively major) change: stockroom limits. While it was, in the beginning, a major blow, I feel we're far better off after the change. Not only are shops less of a "sell everything you can get your hands on", there were also other changes that came through at the same time, and through player feedback. The most dramatic of those were the liquid rift, of course. There is also the fact that you can now store tarot cards, runes and motes in your rift, whereas before you had to store them in rune bags, tarot decks and dream catchers. In addition, they changed the vial runes to make them massively more useful, to the point where they actually sold out shortly after the change. Sure, the changes to stockrooms and the introduction of the liquid rift might not seem linked at first glance, but if it weren't for the change to stockrooms and the discussion that ensued over it, I doubt we would have it today. So saying the admins never listen to players despite plenty of cases where they do is very short-sighted.
And that is all I will say on this topic.
I think those are good points to bring up to show that the administration does listen to its players sometimes. But, I think the main point was that they are unwilling to inform players to their future decisions - not that they are deaf to player concerns about CURRENT features. But, wouldn't it be easier and more streamlined if all those player concerns could be aired before they came out and had to be revised?
Enyalida2012-02-21 06:07:39
talkans:
To a point, I agree. I think we should respect that the administration has created this game (something I considered posting about earlier, but I find that overly long posts are usually skimmed), and that we get to play in it. As I said, I've volunteered on an IRE game before and have headed a department, so I know that players are not sunshine and roses all the time - take me for example - but they're also not idiots who are happy with being played the fool. Personally, I don't feel that the administration have earned much of my respect and, as such, I do not give much of it back. The benefit of being a player is that you don't have to earn the respect of the administration. You gain it automatically. I feel like Lusternia's developers have forgotten this or have never known it.
I'll have to agree with this. You should never go out of your way to be an ass, and should always be as civil as possible, but as a customer (and as a player) who is paying to keep something running, providing an atmosphere that keeps me (a very vague me, intended to encompass all players) happy while challenging you with interesting mechanical limitations and opportunities is the job of the game developers. The admins play their part in this by helping develop the gam and by representing the company as public relations officers. That doesn't mean you should only do things the players ask for or rush to code things suggested, not by a long shot. It does mean that customer satisfaction needs to be a large part of what you do. I have some big problems with a few things admins have said over the years that go completly contrary to this basic tenant of business philosophy. You aren't selling something of 'intrinsic' value, that will help me pay the bills, feed myself, or stay healthy, so it should be something that is appealing and accessible to me. Obviously, your base product does this to a certain degree (or we wouldn't even be talking about it), but that doesn't mean that things couldn't go better.
Svorai:
"For the Wyrd"
"For the Light"
"For Freedom"
We all have a cause to get behind, just need a real reason to stand behind it.
Except Serenwilde, sniffle. "For the... Keeping things they way they were!"
I agree with Fool that stagnation is a problem, but what I feel is a bigger issue behind that problem is one of... detachment. Though I haven't played through the specifics, I'd like to bring back up Aetolia's 'new' Ylem system. With that system, there is always clear road to advancing your own org that includes a built in way for novices/young/non-comms/anyone to help. As you bash, you can collect Ylem gas to help power your pylon, which helps you upkeep ongoing research to ever improve your org in a real sense.
In Lusty, a novice asks what they can do to help out and I gladly show them how to collect pixies, fireflies, and fae! I show them the ways to do various small quests around the wilde, and how to clear spawns out to keep the veil from dropping. They then ask me how some of these help, and I tell them that it puts power in the nexus. They ask me what that does and I say.. er, it makes the Moonhart have more leaves! What's power for? Sitting there. What do we use it for? Nothing, really. Why does my contribution help? Well... it doesn't really. You can always make something up (I usually do) but once they read through things themselves and compare their input to the massive power stockpiled in the nexus, they'll probably feel like you pulled the wool over their eyes. It's the same for everything:
What do we get villages for? Commodities! What do we use those for? Nothing.
Why do we bring fae in? Power and Ladies! What do the Ladies do? Guard the Avatars! Do they actually do that? No. (Granted, this is a bad example, we have enough RP reason to do this).
There isn't any real way to make your org steadily more powerful, and no way to slip down and be weaker. Enemies can raid you all day, and you can just shrug because it won't do anything to weaken you. You can then spend all day (slash month slash year) gathering power for the nexus, and your org won't be any more powerful. At most you elevate a single player to a more powerful level, but that doesn't really do all that much for the entire rest of the org, so it's kind of hard to care.
Razenth2012-02-21 06:18:20
Maybe we should have research trees like Aetolian cities, but with a Lusternian spin?
