http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html

Read it, it's very insightful and might just apply here. Thanks to the people at Penny Arcade for the link.

Laearrist

p.s. I think the "Good-bye semi-hardcore" section VERY specifically applies to CF in it's current mode.

I have to ask how does this apply to CF, in terms of fixing the problem of waning playerbase.

This post does an excellent explanation on how CF and the MUD genre has gotten into the bind it is today, much like how other genres that have bit the dust, but once again it does nothing except say we need innovation to keep the MUD genre alive. And quite frankly to keep any thing in vogue, it needs constant innovation otherwise it fades to black.

I see now that it does not matter the specifics of the innovation and change, just that there needs to be a stead, even if slow, rate of change, and big changes draw back the crowds.

>http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html
>
>Read it, it's very insightful and might just apply here.
>Thanks to the people at Penny Arcade for the link.
>
>Laearrist
>
>p.s. I think the "Good-bye semi-hardcore" section VERY
>specifically applies to CF in it's current mode.

Without reading the link, i'd suggest you think on the fact that Nintendo tends to innovate over a number of games.
I've never seen nintendo revist the same game 100's of times and update it with innovation whilst still keeping it essentially the same.


Edit: What i'm trying to say is that i'd consider the article to be irrelevant. It's a totally different field.

Well worth the read.

CF is, and you can argue this if you want, but I'll point to the CF "clones" as evidence, a genre all to itself. CF got this way by being an innovator. Suplications for priests, the dynamic nature pk, customizable classes, are all some of the innovations that made CF both popular, and fun to play. These things have not gone away, but they haven't been built upon (as much) of late as they once were. Lately, the overall trend has been in refining game mechanics, adding depth, making the game more stable, and an explosion of content. However, in my opinion, this had made CF as a genre into a very mature genre. This isn't neccessarily a bad thing, as the article suggests, as it does satisfy the hard-core playerbase. However, this playerbase errodes naturally, not because you can only play so many FPS, but because you can only play so many hero's under the same overall system before the desire to play yet another one wanes. As the hard-core playerbase errodes, and the semi-hardcore find themselves being pushed out, the game loses players overall. No matter how newbie-friendly the game gets, there are less complex, easier to get into games that have essentially the same features out there. They won't have the depth, but then as a newbie, you generally can't see how to ever remember how to get around all of Midgaard.... depth isn't really a big attraction.

I mentioned (complained) in an earlier post about a lack of big changes of late. I'm trying to use this article to show that an innovation of the kind that made CF what is it today is just what CF needs to not only recapture the imagination of the retired hard-core, the discontented semi-hardcore, and hook the newbies might be just what the doctor ordered. A new class, a cabal shift, etc. How many of the retired elite would return to check out a new class, or fight a new cabal? I would say that these things have always sparked growth and reintrest in the CF community and I'd go so far as to say something alchemical that allowed some sort of trade profession thing would also attract a whole new type of audience who enjoys exactly this sort of thing.

This is already long winded, but I hope with what I've explained (or tried to) that you can read the article in the context of CF and see that it does make some applicable points. Nintendo can't innovate within the same game because their games aren't dynamic. CF is. It's a strength, but if it isn't used, then the game becomes more and more stale until only the super-hardcore elite remain.

Laearrist

None of this is meant to be sky is falling ####, but rather to offer a helpful incite into where CF is, and where it needs to go to become even more successful.

Also, it wasn't really meant for players, as we can't change the game. The imms who have read and understood and put aside any personnal bias will *hopefully* be sparked by it's insights to push those big projects despite us discontent assholes who suck the enjoyment from their jobs. Of course, for me personnally, if I didn't care, I wouldn't complain, but that's always hard to see when someone is ####ting upon your hard work. <-- That's something like an apology... take it... it's all you're getting :P

I like this post as much as I like beer. I (and the rest of the staff) appreciate it.

We're working on a couple of the big projects you're looking for. With any luck, one substantive class revamp is getting fairly close, and another one of tremendous proportions is also coming - how soon depends on how often I get GANGZ0RD at work. Some other things have happened in the last week or two that should also pique the interest of the "veterans". And more is in the works, of course.

Ok, i apologise. I've since read the link and agree with what you're saying (either that I have a completely differing understanding but whatever, it's good). My concern was that CF is one game with one codebase. It's rather hard to create "innovation" for CF as opposed to just variations on the theme.

Reading through the link and thinking of various concerns/threads/arguments that have raged on various forums it's actually obvious that there are many games within the beast that is CF.

Pk'ing, RP, Exploration, Quests, etc.

Innovation/development within these key areas develops overall appeal of the game and appeal to players who seek different things other than the extremely mature CF.

That kind of what you're thinking?

.

I'll echo Sebeok that there are some very major projects in the works that will hopefully be coming together shortly.

I'll also say that there are always major projects in work, but finding and allocating the resources towards them can sometimes be difficult. That's usually the biggest challenge that we face.

And we know you care...:P Tough love is still love.

I keep on hearing (reading) that there are no shortages of ideas that you folks have, and always have in the works, but that you lack resources for much of the heavy duty coding that these ideas require. And I tend to believe you as we all have things in our lives, hobbies, and at work that are on the proverbial plate but we just can't get to as soon as we would like.

Now I understand this completely, as I develop software, and it always seems that people think the stuff happens "automagically". Even to the point where customers sometimes seem like little kids who want their latest toy three days ago, without having any notion of what kind of strain developing that toy is going to put on the ~limited~ resources working on the project.

Anyways, I had a point somewhere here... I am curious to know - what is the process for bringing up new coders...or is there even a process? It would seem that you should have absolutely no problem getting help in this area - even free help - considering the types of people that play MUDs, and CF in particular. I mean, I would consider donating some time and energy in helping out, but don't think I have the ~MUDDING~ ability for what I am guessing it takes to get there ... (become an IMM, put in your time there, and who knows what else..?).

The major problem I see would be the trust issue. You can't just let anyone in. Also knowing where the game is headed in the eyes and minds of the Implementors has got to be key.

Well, okay, I done said enough, just was a bit curious on how, or even if, new coders are brought into the tightly-knit and highly guarded world CF has becomeover the years.

(And props to you all for the good work, by the way!!).

1) You're correct that ideas outpace the ability to implement them, even after cutting them down to only the ideas which gain consensus. This has been true for as long as I've been on the staff, and going back through our records it looks to have always been true.

2) The limiting factors on coding resources are, IMHO:

- Trust. This is the dominant limiting factor, but a malicious coder would be a disaster. Access is tightly limited to a few people, with a few more submitting code by email for implementation by someone else.
- Technical Competence. A sloppy coder will cause a high rate of crashes, possibly including extended downtimes. The damage from this would outweigh the positive impact of many projects. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a lot of training and a good "safety net" to make sure mistakes are caught, repaired, and prevented.
- MUD Competence. It's rare that a coder is handed specifications so exact that they don't have to fill in any blanks. You need people who can guesstimate those details with some degree of accuracy. This takes knowing the game's present state, as well as where it is heading.
- Real Life. The types of people most likely to satisfy the trust and reliability conditions mentioned have been with us a while, and are likely to be older people who hold full-time jobs, have relationship or family commitments, and the like.
- Burnout. It's hard work, and a lot of it is thankless. A common example is that repairing something that periodically crashes us is usually only noticed when it's not being done. Also, the bulk of people (everyone but me, now?) who code for us are programmers at their day jobs, and it's easy for CF coding to feel like overtime. Finally, suffice to say that a (vocal) minority of the playerbase is something that has caused all of our coders to take time off from time to time.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

to make new coders is for non-coder Imms who have met the requirements (most of them, anyway) that Valg listed below to learn how to code. I'm pretty sure this is how Valg started, and I've been interested in doing so for a while. However, this is not a weekend project, and it would take me away from other things that I *can* do right now, so it hasn't been something I've worked towards...yet. We'll see if that changes.

You've expressed my feelings as well.

>Without reading the link, i'd suggest you think on the fact
that Nintendo tends to innovate over a number of games.

If you'd read the link, then you would've seen that it said exactly that. It also discusses dynamics that are relevant to refinement strategies, and what happens when a genre matures and what it means to people whose strategy is not genre-switching. What did you even base your opinion on? The fact that the word nintendo is in the url?