Svorai2012-09-21 14:39:14
I *really* apologise for the length of this. Sometimes I can't help myself, okay. :(
Saran, you're right on the novicehood / GR2/3 thing. Novicehood and guild ranks are all to do with gaining rank in a guild, and have nothing to do with the Collegium experience.
I wrote all of those thoughts down in a rush last night, basing it largely on an idea I was looking to implement manually (with a clan) to support the Shadowmaze. I hadn't really considered that the Collegiums themselves might be able to be changed --- so let me revise what was said.
The issue is player retention --- if we don't want our playerbase to be spread too thin, we have to get more people interested in the game. A big part of this involves a new player's first impression of the game, which is largely centred on the Collegium experience; something that most people here agree could be improved.
This seems to be what people are saying (with a bunch of my own ideas --- feel free to discuss!):
You get the idea.
There would be a bunch of changes required in help files, and considerable work on the mechanics of the Collegium and related things, but if it were considered a valuable change to the game, I think this is a more sensible way to manage the Collegium to Guild transition.
Ideas? Criticisms? A giant red stamp from Estarra saying "This will not be happening. New topic, Svorai"?
In any case, to answer your post, Saran, I agree that Collegiums should be teaching new players more. I do believe this change addresses that --- I just didn't communicate it very well the first time, and it wasn't properly thought out either. Sorry about that.
How does changing the ownership/structure of the Collegium help with player retention? It's a big fancy idea, sure, but would it work? Initiatives like this are only as good as the effort put into them --- even if we were to get the structure, it would be the players who would determine its success.
But in saying this, I believe a new structure that separates the Collegium from the Guilds, handing it over to the Ambassador, and removing the auto-graduate aspect of it, would take the pressure off the guilds to be responsible for the retention of their own players. This way, the Collegium experience is transformed into an org-wide effort, where guilds have time to promote and introduce themselves to potential new members.
What do others think about this?
Saran, you're right on the novicehood / GR2/3 thing. Novicehood and guild ranks are all to do with gaining rank in a guild, and have nothing to do with the Collegium experience.
I wrote all of those thoughts down in a rush last night, basing it largely on an idea I was looking to implement manually (with a clan) to support the Shadowmaze. I hadn't really considered that the Collegiums themselves might be able to be changed --- so let me revise what was said.
The issue is player retention --- if we don't want our playerbase to be spread too thin, we have to get more people interested in the game. A big part of this involves a new player's first impression of the game, which is largely centred on the Collegium experience; something that most people here agree could be improved.
This seems to be what people are saying (with a bunch of my own ideas --- feel free to discuss!):
Newbies shouldn't auto-join a guild upon character creation. Instead, they should join the Collegium to learn about the organisation and use that time to make an informed decision about the guild they wish to join. Org-hoppers, who are also "new members/citizens", would also join the Collegium upon welcoming.
The Collegium should be handed over to the Ambassador to run, with the help of their Aides, who become the Teachers of the Collegium. Why? Firstly, the Ambassador's role is focused on new members/citizens of their organisation, and it makes sense that they run the institution that helps new members/citizens become acquainted with their new org. It also allows GAs and other guild members focus on the important things in this thread, rather than being required to spend 10 minutes to 3 hours with each new player, teaching them how to use the rift, conduct themselves in their org, use the aetherplex, paths, auto-curing and all those should-be-learned-in-the-Collegium things. Ideally, the Ambassador is all for teaching these things, being patient (or at least, appropriately so for their org), and coming up with good ideas to enrich the newbie experience. This is not to say that GAs and other guild members can't be Teachers --- they can be Aides of the Ambassador (and likely would be, with the player population being so small at the moment), but it allows GAs to have the option to focus more on guild affairs. This setup changes the Collegium from a guild-appointed structure to an organisation-wide structure (where the possibility that low-population guilds having few or no Teachers present to help their newbies when they first arrive is not an issue, and Ambassador Aides work for the common good for the organisation --- the engagement and retention of new players). This would remove Teachers as a guild-appointed position (where they don't really 'fit', anyway).
Newbies should be given the option to graduate from the Collegium when *they* are ready, so that they can spend as much time as they need becoming acquainted with game mechanics (config options, aliases, etc), basic concepts (rifts, planar travel) and org-specific lore and information. And so, the auto-graduation countdown should be removed.
Allow newbies to go to an NPC and say "I am ready to graduate" to end their time in the Collegium. The NPC could announce it over CGT (so teachers can be present if they are free), a small gathering of NPCs appear and a mini-ceremony is held (credit to Ushaara). How awesome would that be. Their graduation date could even be noted in a giant logbook of Collegium graduates. Even better, during the ceremony, they could be enrolled into a guild.
"On this twenty-second day of Dvarsh, in the year 338 after the Coming of Estarra, I pronounce you, Newbieperson, a graduate of the Shadowmaze. You are now eligible to join one of our esteemed guilds. Which do you choose, Newbieperson?"
"The Blacktalon"
"Ah! Clearly the best choice you could ever make! Congratulations, you are now a novice of the Blacktalon!"
(Blacktalon): Damian says, "Welcome to the Blacktalon, Newbieperson!"
A tattered welcome-scroll materialises in your hands, quickly unrolling itself and revealing its message:
YOU HAVE JUST JOINED THE BEST GUILD IN THE BASIN --- CONGRATULATIONS! But really, go read GHELP WELCOME and feel free to talk to us over GNT. Awesome. Best intro into a guild ever. See you around!
Under this new way of using the Collegiums, how, then, do we determine whether a newbie is ready to graduate? Or how do we prevent alts just going straight to the NPC to graduate and entering a guild with zero induction? Easy: require them to complete the newbie achievements (all of them) to be eligible to graduate (otherwise the NPC just 'tsk's at them and tells them to work on their achievements), and completing all the quests of the Collegium allows them to graduate with honours. We can check off all the important things a newbie needs to know in the achievements, like using the map, eating herbs, using your rift etc... and can add more when the need arises. For example, I think it's important that newbies know how to use curing, and adding it to the list of newbie achievements would be a great way to introduce new players to this great feature of Lusternia.
Oh! Couldn't get all 100 gnomes before you got to Circle 21? Don't worry! Access to Newton is determined by whether you're a student in a Collegium or not, now, so take your time! This means that experienced players would, at times, when they org-hopped, have access to Newton. That's fine --- most wouldn't want to stay in a Collegium long anyway, and Newton should be a PK free area.
As for the newbie-only events, of course they can be run right now with newbies in our orgs. There's no need for this system to hold events. But the issue I have found over the years is that right now, we don't have a way to reliably classify 'newbies'. Are they people on NWHO only? COLs, NOVs and GR1s? Those without a ranking? People below a certain circle? With the Collegium being opt-out, it's easy to determine who the newbies are in the org --- students of the Collegium. If you're Circle 11, but you've graduated and you don't need any help finding your way to Muud and are already omni-trans because you're an alt --- you are not a newbie. How easy is that. Plus, having Collegium-only events would inspire a sense of community in this little org within an org, and foster the kind of environment I believe is ideal for the Collegium experience.
Ambassadors do not get many new commune privs than other CR4+ people --- only a title and the ability to check and withdraw from the ministry's funds. This change would require that they and their aides have more privs to help new players, similar to those of a GA. I suggest the following (those with a * being Ambassador-only privs):
COLLEGE SHOW
COLLEGE INVENTORY
COLLEGE SCORE
COLLEGE SKILLS
COLLEGE SUMMON
COLLEGE STUDENTS
COLLEGE STUDENTS DORMANT
COLLEGE LASTLOGIN
CGHELP EDIT
CGHELP DELETE
WRITELOG COLLEGIUM
COLLEGEMESSAGE* (maybe we could get a Collegium announcement thing?)
COLLEGE GRADUATE* (an emergency button for people abusing the Collegium? Could there be any issues with an opt-out Collegium experience?
You get the idea.
There would be a bunch of changes required in help files, and considerable work on the mechanics of the Collegium and related things, but if it were considered a valuable change to the game, I think this is a more sensible way to manage the Collegium to Guild transition.
Ideas? Criticisms? A giant red stamp from Estarra saying "This will not be happening. New topic, Svorai"?
In any case, to answer your post, Saran, I agree that Collegiums should be teaching new players more. I do believe this change addresses that --- I just didn't communicate it very well the first time, and it wasn't properly thought out either. Sorry about that.
How does changing the ownership/structure of the Collegium help with player retention? It's a big fancy idea, sure, but would it work? Initiatives like this are only as good as the effort put into them --- even if we were to get the structure, it would be the players who would determine its success.
But in saying this, I believe a new structure that separates the Collegium from the Guilds, handing it over to the Ambassador, and removing the auto-graduate aspect of it, would take the pressure off the guilds to be responsible for the retention of their own players. This way, the Collegium experience is transformed into an org-wide effort, where guilds have time to promote and introduce themselves to potential new members.
What do others think about this?
Jozen2012-09-21 15:10:43
I still think the Collegium is only effective as a concept in a game where organisations are actually well-populated. The problem is the negative perception of the health of this game from the eyes of a truly new player when they don't see anybody online in their guild or organisation. Collegium or no collegium.
Additionally, the newbie experience is still pretty handicapped by the complexity of combat in Lusternia and the cost of admittance to acquire these systems. Credits for a system might have been alternatively spent on a one or two month sub for a graphical MMO or a game on Steam. There is also the additional coding involved and other obstacles to just "play" the game.
The credit market is also highly inflated from where it was months or years ago, which only compounds the problem of using real life money to play a "free" game. Admittedly it is hard to compete as a MUD against all the other gaming alternatives out there, especially in the year 2012.
Since this is a niche market, I think at this point the focus should be on player retention. Recruiting new players is a nice goal, but I think its an unrealistic objective--particularly in making any impact on the server population as a whole. I'm not expecting us to ever jump from 60 players online to 300. Even as a long-term goal. The concern for me is that myself and other veterans get fatigued because the end-game is a bit dry and repetitive, especially when conflict involves the same small group of players.
Additionally, the newbie experience is still pretty handicapped by the complexity of combat in Lusternia and the cost of admittance to acquire these systems. Credits for a system might have been alternatively spent on a one or two month sub for a graphical MMO or a game on Steam. There is also the additional coding involved and other obstacles to just "play" the game.
The credit market is also highly inflated from where it was months or years ago, which only compounds the problem of using real life money to play a "free" game. Admittedly it is hard to compete as a MUD against all the other gaming alternatives out there, especially in the year 2012.
Since this is a niche market, I think at this point the focus should be on player retention. Recruiting new players is a nice goal, but I think its an unrealistic objective--particularly in making any impact on the server population as a whole. I'm not expecting us to ever jump from 60 players online to 300. Even as a long-term goal. The concern for me is that myself and other veterans get fatigued because the end-game is a bit dry and repetitive, especially when conflict involves the same small group of players.
Svorai2012-09-21 15:33:39
True, and understood. This idea would, of course, work much better with a well-populated game.
But as well as this, a lot of us 'end-gamers' are looking for our own way to make our mark on the game and come up with new and interesting things that we can become involved with.
I quit as GA, not because I didn't want to do it anymore, but I wanted to shake things up a bit and try something new. Roleplay and player interaction is as important an aspect of the game as combat and conflict to keep people interested and active, and I've proposed one way people can get involved in the development of this.
Change produces growth. No, I'm not spouting a Glomdoring mantra, it's a simple fact; there is always a flurry of activity whenever something changes in Lusternia, be it combat-related changes or mechanical changes.
But! This, of course, isn't *the* solution. Just an idea for a better way of doing one aspect of the game which may or may not be more appealing to new members, and provide a new avenue for roleplay, interaction and achievement for existing players.
What do you suggest happens, then? Is there anything we, as players, can do?
But as well as this, a lot of us 'end-gamers' are looking for our own way to make our mark on the game and come up with new and interesting things that we can become involved with.
I quit as GA, not because I didn't want to do it anymore, but I wanted to shake things up a bit and try something new. Roleplay and player interaction is as important an aspect of the game as combat and conflict to keep people interested and active, and I've proposed one way people can get involved in the development of this.
Change produces growth. No, I'm not spouting a Glomdoring mantra, it's a simple fact; there is always a flurry of activity whenever something changes in Lusternia, be it combat-related changes or mechanical changes.
But! This, of course, isn't *the* solution. Just an idea for a better way of doing one aspect of the game which may or may not be more appealing to new members, and provide a new avenue for roleplay, interaction and achievement for existing players.
What do you suggest happens, then? Is there anything we, as players, can do?
Unknown2012-09-21 15:47:29
One of the main problems with Lusternia is the mindset and mentality of some of the playerbase. Just sayin'
Turnus2012-09-21 15:49:33
Even though I threw out the idea of joining a guild after the collegium, I'm not sure it's really the way to go. For one thing, it could likely mean the guilds with more active players in it are more likely to recruit newbies, whereas those empty guilds are likely to get even less than they have been. Secondly, it would keep newbies from getting fun skills to play with - those cool toys is likely one of the things that keep them playing. Thirdly, it would funnel them to the collegium moreso than Newton - the collegium tasks while important to learn the game aren't really that interesting, Newton is an awesome area that's a good place for newbies to explore the game. Exploring Newton without skills (see point two) would be rather dull and likely drive people off.
Jozen2012-09-21 15:55:41
I would really like to see the number of organisations decrease. This will heighten the sense of immersion and inter-player communication and involvement. It seems to be the best treatment for a game with our population size.
You can enhance player retention and the newbie experience by simply dropping the number of choices available. An organisation with 5 people online can now have 10 or 15. Whereas, through means of player recruitment, you'd have to possibly get a sixfold increase in the number of active players due to the 6 different organisations currently available. The simplest solution to accomplish greater intra-organisational activity is to drop the number of available organisations. The 6 org model just does not work with our server population.
You can enhance player retention and the newbie experience by simply dropping the number of choices available. An organisation with 5 people online can now have 10 or 15. Whereas, through means of player recruitment, you'd have to possibly get a sixfold increase in the number of active players due to the 6 different organisations currently available. The simplest solution to accomplish greater intra-organisational activity is to drop the number of available organisations. The 6 org model just does not work with our server population.
Unknown2012-09-21 15:58:53
Well, what do you suggest we do? Delete an entire org? Never gonna happen.
Svorai2012-09-21 16:05:34
Turnus:
Even though I threw out the idea of joining a guild after the collegium, I'm not sure it's really the way to go. For one thing, it could likely mean the guilds with more active players in it are more likely to recruit newbies, whereas those empty guilds are likely to get even less than they have been. Secondly, it would keep newbies from getting fun skills to play with - those cool toys is likely one of the things that keep them playing. Thirdly, it would funnel them to the collegium moreso than Newton - the collegium tasks while important to learn the game aren't really that interesting, Newton is an awesome area that's a good place for newbies to explore the game. Exploring Newton without skills (see point two) would be rather dull and likely drive people off.
Fair point! Hmm.
Well, what about having people have access to guild skills, but with the novicehood limitation, as it is now, but with the opt-out Collegium run by the Ambassador? Guilds can leave newbies in the hands of the Collegium still, which ideally would have more people in it --- two-three from every guild?
What I proposed isn't really all that different from what we have now, just with a different mindset attached to it, and structure. People are talking about guilds needing to ramp up their internal affairs and build upon their lore to retain people... could this change help with that?
Jozen:
I would really like to see the number of organisations decrease. This will heighten the sense of immersion and inter-player communication and involvement. It seems to be the best treatment for a game with our population size.
You can enhance player retention and the newbie experience by simply dropping the number of choices available. An organisation with 5 people online can now have 10 or 15. Whereas, through means of player recruitment, you'd have to possibly get a sixfold increase in the number of active players due to the 6 different organisations currently available. The simplest solution to accomplish greater intra-organisational activity is to drop the number of available organisations. The 6 org model just does not work with our server population.
We are a whinging bunch. When we want new skills and more options, the admin provides new skills and more options --- people complained and complained for the release of new Hallifax/Gaudiguch guilds.
Okay, but how would we go about this? I sure as hell wouldn't want my own org to be deleted, and I can't imagine anyone else would too. We're in our guilds/orgs for a reason. How could something like this work for Lusternia? I can't see it happening.
In any case, I'm tired and heading off. Maybe this conversation isn't going anywhere. The players make the game, after all.
Noola2012-09-21 16:08:07
Yeah, as much as you might like to see an org disappear, it's been said over and over that this isn't gonna happen. So the ideas need to be ones that work with the idea of having as many orgs as we have.
Here's an idea. What if, while in the collegium, the newbie does quests where they learn a bit about each guild, and, while on a certain guild's quest, they get a small sample of their abilities A hunting ability, a few defensive ones, healing/ego boosting ones. They lose those abilities when they complete that quest and take on another guild's quest, but this way, a newbie not only learns a bit of lore about each guild before picking one, they get to try it out for a little while. That way, they get cool abilities to play with AND they get to find out which guild is more fun to them, both RP wise and skill wise.
Just an idea I had I thought I'd jot out between work emails. :lol:
Here's an idea. What if, while in the collegium, the newbie does quests where they learn a bit about each guild, and, while on a certain guild's quest, they get a small sample of their abilities A hunting ability, a few defensive ones, healing/ego boosting ones. They lose those abilities when they complete that quest and take on another guild's quest, but this way, a newbie not only learns a bit of lore about each guild before picking one, they get to try it out for a little while. That way, they get cool abilities to play with AND they get to find out which guild is more fun to them, both RP wise and skill wise.
Just an idea I had I thought I'd jot out between work emails. :lol:
Jozen2012-09-21 16:10:08
If you take a moment to stay any incongruous feelings and open your thoughts to potential solutions, it may help us maintain civil discourse about a game we all care about. Let's be constructive and not galling towards any conception. Why do you feel that rearranging organisational structure is not a viable solution?
I think that we need to re-evaluate the current organisational model within the game given the empirical data and player experiences. How to implement it? I'm not sure, but it needs to start here.
The problem with trying to maintain a problematic model is that you end up perpetuating the same issues. Any other treatment is palliative and will not address the actual underlying issues.
We can keep swinging back at fixing collegium, but I can barely name any new guildmates or true new players in my organisation that were not alts (while I was in mag). I don't have hard numbers, but I'd like to see the amount of truly new players that joined and stayed active in the last 3 months.
I think that we need to re-evaluate the current organisational model within the game given the empirical data and player experiences. How to implement it? I'm not sure, but it needs to start here.
The problem with trying to maintain a problematic model is that you end up perpetuating the same issues. Any other treatment is palliative and will not address the actual underlying issues.
We can keep swinging back at fixing collegium, but I can barely name any new guildmates or true new players in my organisation that were not alts (while I was in mag). I don't have hard numbers, but I'd like to see the amount of truly new players that joined and stayed active in the last 3 months.
Noola2012-09-21 16:14:24
Jozen:
If you take a moment to stay any incongruous feelings and open your thoughts to potential solutions, it may help us maintain civil discourse about a game we all care about. Let's be constructive and not galling towards any conception. Why do you feel that rearranging organisational structure is not a viable solution?
I think that we need to re-evaluate the current organisational model within the game given the empirical data and player experiences. How to implement it? I'm not sure, but it needs to start here.
The problem with trying to maintain a problematic model is that you end up perpetuating the problems. Any other treatment is palliative and will not address the actual underlying issues.
I don't know if you were talking to me, and I'm sorry if I came across as uncivil, if you were. :( I was just in a hurry.
As far as why we can't get rid of orgs... because Estarra has specifically said we won't be doing that. So, we need to work around it.
If you weren't talking to me at all, nevermind! :lol:
Jozen2012-09-21 16:28:52
Well, if the administration absolutely refuse to address it there's really not a terrible amount we can do. As I've stated, going the player recruitment route is like trying to get people to use vintage rotary telephones after the invent of smart phones. Text games are a niche market that goes back to the days of dial-up. We are in the age of wireless broadband, and technology continues to press forward, but text games do not.
Thus we have to acknowledge that we're competing in a gaming market as a very small niche. While we market ourselves as free, the majority of us know that any player that wishes to remain active needs to eventually start shelling out cash.
So player recruitment in of itself while a concern should not be the primary issue--it should be player retention.
Thus we have to acknowledge that we're competing in a gaming market as a very small niche. While we market ourselves as free, the majority of us know that any player that wishes to remain active needs to eventually start shelling out cash.
So player recruitment in of itself while a concern should not be the primary issue--it should be player retention.
Svorai2012-09-21 16:46:50
The thing is, Jozen, is that people *do* play MUDs. Achaea's population is nice and healthy, for example, and that's just one other MUD.
There are people around to play, they just aren't playing Lusternia.
Lusternia is free to play. There are people who have worked their way up without spending a cent. I'm not one of them, but then, I'm also impatient when it comes to omgIcankillpeoplebyscaringthemtodeath. *buy credits* But Lusternia does need people to buy credits every once and a while, if we want the game to grow as it has in recent years.
Player recruitment is a concern, because it is these new players who need/want/are excited by getting to the top faster, and are more likely to buy credits than you and I, who are omnitrans with all our guild artifacts and a few toys, to boot. While fixing the credit market, new players are also filling those holes in our guilds.
So no, I don't think it's player retention that's the bigger issue, it is player recruitment primarily (and player retention takes care of itself). We, as players, as the shapers of the interesting parts of the game, need to make a collective effort to encourage these new people to see how awesome this game is, and show them where they can fit into it.
Anyway, I'm abandoning this conversation, going to bed, and I'll go work on my own piece of Lusternia later on.
There are people around to play, they just aren't playing Lusternia.
Lusternia is free to play. There are people who have worked their way up without spending a cent. I'm not one of them, but then, I'm also impatient when it comes to omgIcankillpeoplebyscaringthemtodeath. *buy credits* But Lusternia does need people to buy credits every once and a while, if we want the game to grow as it has in recent years.
Player recruitment is a concern, because it is these new players who need/want/are excited by getting to the top faster, and are more likely to buy credits than you and I, who are omnitrans with all our guild artifacts and a few toys, to boot. While fixing the credit market, new players are also filling those holes in our guilds.
So no, I don't think it's player retention that's the bigger issue, it is player recruitment primarily (and player retention takes care of itself). We, as players, as the shapers of the interesting parts of the game, need to make a collective effort to encourage these new people to see how awesome this game is, and show them where they can fit into it.
Anyway, I'm abandoning this conversation, going to bed, and I'll go work on my own piece of Lusternia later on.
Unknown2012-09-21 17:02:39
I think those mudstats figures are just wrong, that's from me logging in every day and seeing who. Where do they get their data from?
Jozen2012-09-21 17:06:19
I never said player recruitment isn't a concern, I just feel like we should prioritise and cultivate our current players.
By design this game is free, and you _could_ get away with never paying a single cent. However, it's much like in the same way you can live your entire life without having ever driven a car. You can pull it off, albeit it's extremely difficult and inconvenient. Even the curing in this game requires many people to get credits, and the credit market as it stands represents an obstacle to obtaining them without getting out your credit card.
I think improving collegium so that it improves the newbie experience is a great idea, and we should certainly pursue it. However, I think we should temper any expectation of the changes in collegium to make any waves with population issues. I still view any changes here as palliative, they will provide relief but will not affect any cure. You will still run into an issue of collegiums being inadequate in small organisations.
Mudstats uses a transparent protocol (MSSP) to acquire dynamic information about current number of online players, much like a search engine uses web crawlers to get statistics about websites.
By design this game is free, and you _could_ get away with never paying a single cent. However, it's much like in the same way you can live your entire life without having ever driven a car. You can pull it off, albeit it's extremely difficult and inconvenient. Even the curing in this game requires many people to get credits, and the credit market as it stands represents an obstacle to obtaining them without getting out your credit card.
I think improving collegium so that it improves the newbie experience is a great idea, and we should certainly pursue it. However, I think we should temper any expectation of the changes in collegium to make any waves with population issues. I still view any changes here as palliative, they will provide relief but will not affect any cure. You will still run into an issue of collegiums being inadequate in small organisations.
I think those mudstats figures are just wrong, that's from me logging in every day and seeing who. Where do they get their data from?
Mudstats uses a transparent protocol (MSSP) to acquire dynamic information about current number of online players, much like a search engine uses web crawlers to get statistics about websites.
Saran2012-09-21 17:08:19
It's looking okay Svorai. I'd just really prefer, for example, things like stock up on curatives, earn circle 21, or learn your primary and secondary to 100% adept be handled by the collegium to free up guilds.
I'm thinking one route may be this collegium change, followed by a severe reduction in guild ranks, then implementation of "Factions" (please let there be flexibility or at least org specific customisations for them), potentially followed by the consolidation of the gm and ga positions though that will likely be contentious.
The last bit is just me thinking the guilds may focus more on teaching after the change, where the factions could rise to form the councils.
I'm thinking one route may be this collegium change, followed by a severe reduction in guild ranks, then implementation of "Factions" (please let there be flexibility or at least org specific customisations for them), potentially followed by the consolidation of the gm and ga positions though that will likely be contentious.
The last bit is just me thinking the guilds may focus more on teaching after the change, where the factions could rise to form the councils.
Unknown2012-09-21 17:22:39
Jozen:
Mudstats uses a transparent protocol (MSSP) to acquire dynamic information about current number of online players, much like a search engine uses web crawlers to get statistics about websites.
Mostly correct. While a lot do use this OOB protocol, many do not. MSSP needs compiling directly into the codebase and as such, not all bases have it available. In the instances they do not, a number of tracking services opt for nothing more than the creation of a character and doing a simple WHO.
It is certainly not something I am keen to rely on so far as legitimate and valid player numbers are concerned. It's pretty much in the same vein as TMS, in all honesty.
Now.... If we had an impartial, third-party service to track these kinds of things!
Eventru2012-09-21 17:25:22
Mudstats is definitely wrong.
We aren't removing orgs. Sorry.
We aren't removing orgs. Sorry.
Jozen2012-09-21 17:35:40
Even with a margin of error of 20% it still doesn't warrant the amount of organisations available. However, if you're dead set on spreading the population thin, there's really nothing left to pursue here.
Unknown2012-09-21 17:36:34
Jozen:
much like a search engine uses web crawlers to get statistics about websites.
Sorry, I don't want to sound pedantic, but this is actually completely incorrect. The data is available directly, (also via an API) to any service that requests it. There is no "trawling" at all.
