Go back to previous topic
Forum Name Code Changes
Topic subjectStatus Update
Topic URLhttps://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=47&topic_id=163
163, Status Update
Posted by Scarabaeus on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I thought it might be worthwhile to let everyone know what's happening behind the scenes these days, especially since much of it is not visible.

We currently have seven new mini-areas that are in production. Why areas? Well, that's how new immortals cut their teeth on being in the CF staff. The good news--apart from the fact that areas are either being updated or expanded with new things--is that means our immstaff is progressing. As these newer immortals advance we will be seeing new religions pop up, new immortal persona taking on cabal management, and more delegation of immortal duties to staff members with growing command options.

The reported lag issue is still being investigated. Since I am taking care of bug reports, system administration, uploading areas, and all of the thankless things Zulghinlour did with amazing dedication, Umiron volunteered to step in and help with the testing (along with some other staff members). Interestingly, they have been unable to reproduce the reported issue. But we're collecting data, which is helpful.
171, Seven new immortals?
Posted by Kstatida on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Well that's where the numbers went, didn't they? :)

I hope they make it by June, I'm planning for a badass two-month session :)
170, Thank you sir (n/t)
Posted by Bemused on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
gr
168, This has come up before..
Posted by Java on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
But why are areas "how new immortals cut their teeth"? Seems to me that, considering areas aren't really a -need- right now, there might be more efficient ways of bringing new Imms along.

What's the risk to allowing them to actively manage the cabal a little earlier? Or even a religion for that matter? As long as you vet them prior to them joining the staff, and keep at least a decent eye on them early on I don't see much risk. Worst case, maybe a poor leader gets picked or a trash paladin gets tatted. So what? Those are easily correctable. More likely result? Cabals other than Tribunal get some love and the playerbase stops congregating in the Spire.

It just seems like the current system is outdated and only in place because that's how it's always been. Status quo is rarely, if ever, valid justification for a process.

Just a thought.



I do want to say, I really do appreciate this type of status update. From an outside perspective, CF really looks leader-less and direction-less lately even if we know that isn't actually the case. More communication on the way ahead definitely helps clear that up. Hopefully this becomes a regular thing.
169, I suppose I've never directly responded before
Posted by Scarabaeus on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I don't think of this process as "we've always done it this way" but as "know what you're managing". For ANY immortal, understanding how areas are put together is important to understanding how the game works. Even if you worked on another MUD at some point, understanding how our system works is critical. You can get to know how mechanics work from playing the game, but I would want you to know how the game structures data before you're dealing with players praying about bugs, or creating quest mobs, or designing your temple.

I get that some people will take to the process more readily than others. That doesn't mean it's a meaningless exercise.
172, Thanks for the response
Posted by Java on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I just wish there was a more efficient way of moving Imms along. New areas are kind of a waste nowadays, when so much attention is needed elsewhere.

That's my opinion though, I appreciate you giving your reasons.
167, This is great.
Posted by Iunna on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Updates like this are helpful for the majority of us who don't have insight behind the scenes. Sometimes transparency does a lot to curb conspiracy theorists.

Somewhat related, are newsletters still a thing? I haven't received one in a while but I may not actually be on the list. Hopefully with the new up-and-comers, someone will want to take that on as it was a nice vehicle for non-critical game updates.

Thanks for all the hard work!
164, RE: Status Update
Posted by Jhyrbian on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Thanks for the updates Sacer, if you want to go one further, you should go ahead and start banning those morons like Laerrist who are full saccing noobs.

If his char Brayan is still active, he outed himself, please just drop a deny on him.

http://www.qhcf.net/phorum/read.php?3,1104996,1104996#msg-1104996
165, outing/annoying
Posted by Scarabaeus on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
This is interesting timing, as a staff member just asked me about this as well (and pulled the trigger, so Brayan is gone).

Outing yourself is never a good idea (though it's typically done in farewell posts), as it conflicts with our first two rules. (Though some may say that such a character is not creating ANY advantage for himself.) I'm less inclined to judge intent, but the "Characters created strictly to annoy others will be removed" rule does seem to be in play here as well.

Our (sometimes deplorable) CF culture has undergone some strange changes in recent years. While I don't oppose full looting by itself, targeting new players does not do anything to enhance this game.

166, RE: outing/annoying
Posted by Tac on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>This is interesting timing, as a staff member just asked me
>about this as well (and pulled the trigger, so Brayan is
>gone).

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=66979&mesg_id=66979&listing_type=search

I asked about this. Recently. And was given a different answer. Specifically this one: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=66979&mesg_id=66983&page=

While I don't believe giving Glikhardiz the same treatment will be done, that was... I believe fairly obviously... the point of my initial post.

>Outing yourself is never a good idea (though it's typically
>done in farewell posts), as it conflicts with our first two
>rules. (Though some may say that such a character is not
>creating ANY advantage for himself.) I'm less inclined to
>judge intent, but the "Characters created strictly to annoy
>others will be removed" rule does seem to be in play here as
>well.

This character was not created with any intent to strictly annoy others. At least any further than any pickpocket thief who hates magic would be. I'm not arguing against the ban, as I believe outting a character should get you banned, but judging the character to be strictly to annoy others should be based on more than a couple of logs.

>Our (sometimes deplorable) CF culture has undergone some
>strange changes in recent years. While I don't oppose full
>looting by itself, targeting new players does not do anything
>to enhance this game.

To target a new player, one would have to know they were a new player. I have no way to know if a character is new. I was also not the aggressor in latest log. If a mage comes to the village and picks a fight, what is a village character supposed to do?