Recently I have seen the lowest number of players on CF consistantly throughout the day and night, since I started playing. Uptime and number of player commands put in the game by you guys (immortals) confirm this. Although you have access to complete numbers, it is apparent that CF is on a major player downswing.

With the recent deletion of two very loved immortals of CF, and the mass exodus of heroimms and lower level immortals, couple that with a number of older players ditching out on Glimo's, there is an obvious and glaring problem here.

This is my theory, debunk or flame as needed.

When I started playing, I played mainly for the social aspect CF brought with my friends. I played with 8 or 9 individuals all at the university and high school level. We talked about CF outside of playing it, and it made the game that much more enjoyable. Also, the percentage of new players sticking with CF is dramatically higher when they have others to bounce ideas off of or ask for help in real life. I would gamble that CF staying percentage is 80% if this is so. With newbies stumbling on CF, or through this website, or the mud finder website, its more like 20% at most. Massive cabal wars between actual RL factions were an every day occurance. On some of the immortal goodbye notes, people outline them in a seeminly enjoyable fashion. Although they did, at points take away from the roleplaying atmosphere, the wars themselves were the highpoint of many players.

Then CF changed, slowly over time. Rules came down about multi-charring, etc., all good changes, but then one change caused massive havoc and terrible repercusions for playing CF socially. Cannot interact with that other person without REALLY GOOD reasons. Equipment given over same-site but different player, for whatever reason, even is roleplaying driven, is a no-no, and anti-cheat code alerts and at the least, severe warnings are given out to deletion/denial/banning. This change, forcing CF into a single person "in a dark room in front of a monitor" kind of game has ultimately killed CF and its numbers.

As rules and commandments from immortals came down and their severe enforcement, many of those social players were scared off (including myself for a time). Now, I know I am not trying to get anyone else hooked on CF, mainly because of this problem. I don't want my current character to get tainted by a "newbie" actions. I am definately not going to show them how to play from my site, because that is logged by you guys (immortals) and compared for cheating and what not, hidden flags, etc. You cannot group with them online (in game) and help them, which is the most effective way of teaching and keeping them hooked. As I said above, the game has become a loner game connected between internet, "Underground" social circles.

The social aspect of CF is, on the surface gone, and in reality has been pushed underground, and is insanely frowned upon by CF immortals and staff (although even they take part in it), but that internet society does not rival real life social playing. And I must admit, my main enjoyment still with CF is swapping stories with the few individuals I know who still play in real life and hang out with periodically.

Older players think like I do, as I have talked to a few. Those I played with socially confirmed this idea with me when I discussed it with them. They won't play anymore. Its too tiresome to be summarily deleted because you are grouped with a couple friends for violating this "ambigeous rule". Younger players go through the tough knocks of cheating once or twice, and if they survive that, are too paranoid and become like older players. Older players, like me, do not have newer player friends to revitalize ourselves on the game, nor do we want to introduce "newbie" people to CF out of not only lack of desire, lack of wanting to expose them to this place, but fear, instilled directly from immortal set out rules.

For whatever reason, my desire to play is also waning. And when I see a sinking ship, I know it, as do many other players. Ultimately, CF is no longer a social, viable game outside of the internet circles. Real life friends and players no longer play out of fear, lack of desire to dance around your rules, etc. What made CF fun was playing with real life friends, talking ####, swapping stories, brutalizing each other and others. As with all games, football, basketball, there is a large amount of enjoyment that comes off the "court" so to speak. And CF has set up rules to deny that enjoyment, which has lead to downturn in players on a large scale.

Your argument of "this is our game and its private property and we make the rules, so don't come if you don't want to" is viable and great, except for one thing. Alienate too many players, and it will be your sandbox, and you and the 14 other immortals (if there are that many at that time) can fight each other to all content, but that certainly isn't fun.

What I have put up here is the opinion of 17 CF players that I know in real life and over the dreaded internet.

duhh
muds are a dieng race. it can be a kickass mud and still people would rather go have a real life.

Telnet is just not really in the cool crowd....

thats why carrionfields rules

As an active player that hasn't played in a decade or something, it looks like the same thing.

The staff want the game to be competitive, not fun. Like you point out, being social as a human being is basically discouraged, in the name of "roleplaying" or balance or whatever.

Who is that fun for?

But also, I agree with something you're saying. I looked this up again because I have been reading the /r/mud subreddit for a few months, and I've honestly been surprised that people are still actively playing MUDs.

I've never seen a mention of Carrion Fields! Where are you guys?

I have a character running right now after some many years away. Someone in this thread mentioned CF really attracts a certain kind of personality, and I find that to be so true. The roleplay, exploration, area descriptions, and character interactions are so fantastic.

I just don't have time to spend on things I don't want to be doing. XP holes from dying to mobs is literally stealing actual RL time from me that I've put in to leveling. That's ridiculous for anybody that isn't a teenager with a ton of free time. Pk against vets with 15+ years of area, gear, PK, and prep experience just isnt really fun for anybody who isn't in the aforementioned position. When you die in PK, you've got to pay with you RL time again to get back to your corpse, get gear, money, etc.

It's also a big ask for someone to dump hundreds of hours into leveling a character. I don't have many other games that I drop that much time in.

You may think these are things that are wrong with cf, but I don't necessarily agree. Its a very unique (And good) game that's perfect for a certain kind of person. Most people aren't that kind of person, and that's the real reason CF struggles to achieve a good player base.

Cf is anti social... That's not a good thing

We spend a ton of time playing these characters of ours and none of that time actually develops any kind of lasting or real friendship with another person. It's actually a bit absurd and kind of sad and it's the biggest problem with the mud.

100, 200 to 500 plus hours into a character and I don't actually know anyone I played with in that time period...

World of Warcraft, using this as an example. Sorry, but I would think most of the people here have played it...

When that game came out it was a steaming pile. It was buggy and the gameplay sucked. Got better and eventually became great due to the devs evaluating the game and most importantly responding to feedback from the player base on ways to improve the game.

The social side of the game made that game become super popular. It was a place to hang out and make new friends! Massive effort was put into creating those systems so people could do that.

Like a lot of other MMO's, MP shooters, MOBA's and online games people get together and game for hours, days, weeks, months, years and years. They get online to game with other people. People make new friends playing those game's... That is one of the primary reasons those game succeeded. It created an environment where people can come together and do stuff together. Form a guild, form a clan, make an in game club, add each other to friends lists and get back together and do it again the next day! Meet in RL, hang out etc. Been there and done that myself.


I came back to play again 2 weeks ago after not playing for 3 years or so.

Levelling up there was some nice players who went out of their way to help the lowbies power level up.
It was hard finding people to group with... Props to those players who do that.

After I hit hero...

I log on..
I sit there for 15 minutes nobody to play with
I sit there for 30 minutes nobody to play with
I sit there for and hour nobody to play with.

Try to do some PVE stuff and I can barely do it cause its too hard solo or just painful slow

I sit there for 1.5 hours nobody to play with
I sit there for 2+ hours nobody to play with
I found some new pron to watch...
I log off...

Rinse and repeat later in the day... Rinse and repeat the next day... Rinse and repeat the next day... Rinse and repeat...

This situation isn't new, this is every character I've played in the past 7-8 years.

Getting back to the social side...

I can't ask someone I met in game to come play with me at "insert time here" because that's not an acceptable thing in this game. The game suffers because its lacking what is now "COMMON" in all of the other video games out there. The social side where people can connect with and making new friends with people and then get together and play with each other. Look at every game out there, there is a very easy to use friends list.

Yeah perma groups are bad... It's much easier to target those specific people and say stop. It's no worse though then the elitist player who kills someone... comes back 1 hour later kills them again and then does it again the next day. If I at least had my gaming buddy we could talk about how the heck to stop them.

I come here to play for nostalgia and that's bad. It would be much better if I came here to play with and hang out with friends...

I appreciate that the game is here to be played. I appreciate the people who are trying to constantly add to it. It's weird in there though because it can't really be played. The core design of the game requires you to have people to play with on the PVE side. PVP gets weird because the player base is stuck dealing with elitist players or wonky balance issue, but that's a different discussion.


The game could use an OOC system for players to talk to each other and BS... It just dumb in this day and age of gaming to not have it. You can always try it. If it sucks tweak it. If it causes problems remove it.

Tried exploring a new area with 4 people, myself included. Issues stopped us. It's dumb that we can't just OOC tell or group chat each other and say hey lets try and finish this Tuesday at 5? The reality is someone out of that group is going to rage delete before the party can get back together to finish it and I'll never see the place...

That's the broken world we game in.

lol

This post is still legit to this day 20 years later. Keep bringing it up. Nothing will actually change especially the NDAs.

by simply stating.

There is nothing wrong, it's all by design, his points were invalid.

I made a mess of it on qhcf and I've done it here too, but I get the consistant feeling that the Imm's do not care about the over all feel of the game at all.

Shoddy descriptions, bizzar names, requests for assistance or clarification are met with cryptic answers that leave me wondering if I was just helped or insulted.

I'll give an example that has stuck in my craw for some time. I had a Felar hand spec and I couldn't understand why, I was seeing no echoes for evasion and why I was seeing no improvements in it after several ranks of nearly solo ranking/exploring.

I prayed about it and was told "Nothing was wrong." I asked for clarification and was told... "Zip" no response. In time I deleted for what ever reason and moved on.

Then some time ago I was reading a log and I noticed the player inputing the command "eva". I re-read the help file and realized that I had over looked the obvious. t was not an automatic skill but one requiring input.

Call me what you want, (Many of you do after all) but how hard would it have been to have simply offered that I needed to input the command or at least look at the help file again.

What if I wasn't an alrady jaded player that expected this treatment from the staff?

Any way, why just make it official policy that it's against official policy to ask why people might be leaving CF.

P.S. I am not now nor have I ever considered myself a stellar example of the player base.

P.S.S. Your minotaur system is just nerfed. How is It I can be rolling one, stop rolling, start again the next instant and have no slot? Why be so difficult about things like this?

>by simply stating.
>
>There is nothing wrong, it's all by design, his points were
>invalid.

Had I believed that, I would have said that.

>I made a mess of it on qhcf and I've done it here too, but I
>get the consistant feeling that the Imm's do not care about
>the over all feel of the game at all.

Then you're either not paying attention or a complete ####ing
idiot. Just one person's opinion.

>Shoddy descriptions, bizzar names,

Pray. If someone hears you and if they agree with you and if
they can do something about it, they will. Agreeing with you
is the least of those things, unless you're the guy who keeps
praying over really obscure things like the character who is
named after a street near him or someone mentioned in passing
in some book we've never read.

For my part, I will make an effort to check on these things
more frequently because they're generally spotted by Heroimms
and we're a little low on them at the moment.

>requests for assistance or clarification are met with cryptic
>answers that leave me wondering if I was just helped or insulted.

You were probably help to the extent the person was able to
help you.

>I'll give an example that has stuck in my craw for some time.
>I had a Felar hand spec and I couldn't understand why, I was
>seeing no echoes for evasion and why I was seeing no
>improvements in it after several ranks of nearly solo
>ranking/exploring.
>
>I prayed about it and was told "Nothing was wrong." I asked
>for clarification and was told... "Zip" no response. In time I
>deleted for what ever reason and moved on.

This is an example of assuming making an ass of you and me.
There was nothing wrong with evasion and both you and the Imm
assumed you were using it correctly. That's just short-sighted-
ness on both your parts. You didn't need their special powers
to read the helpfile and they may not have been able to see what
you were doing and took it on faith you were doing it right.

>Then some time ago I was reading a log and I noticed the
>player inputing the command "eva". I re-read the help file and
>realized that I had over looked the obvious. t was not an
>automatic skill but one requiring input.

So you both overlooked the obvious. Dude, *I* get corrected on
the newbie channel sometimes over stuff that I developed. We're
just human.

>Call me what you want, (Many of you do after all) but how hard
>would it have been to have simply offered that I needed to
>input the command or at least look at the help file again.

You didn't think of that either.

>What if I wasn't an alrady jaded player that expected this
>treatment from the staff?

That sometimes everyone forgets to read the helpfile.

>Any way, why just make it official policy that it's against
>official policy to ask why people might be leaving CF.
>
>P.S. I am not now nor have I ever considered myself a stellar
>example of the player base.

I've seen you do some good stuff with your orcs. ;)

>P.S.S. Your minotaur system is just nerfed. How is It I can be
>rolling one, stop rolling, start again the next instant and
>have no slot?

Someone else got in there quick-like.

>Why be so difficult about things like this?

Hey, I'm on your side with the minotaurs.

I just said that because it set Valg off once.

Anyway back on topic.

You said:

>Then you're either not paying attention or a complete ####ing
idiot. Just one person's opinion.<

I am a complete F-ing idiot and I'm the first to admit it. I let my emotions get the better of me at times. When I wrote this post It seemed valid, but I was angry over something else and I see it bled into this.

>Pray. If someone hears you and if they agree with you and if
they can do something about it, they will. Agreeing with you
is the least of those things, unless you're the guy who keeps
praying over really obscure things like the character who is
named after a street near him or someone mentioned in passing
in some book we've never read.<

I was told not to pray about names, so I don't anymore unless it's just glaringly obvious like Thror... whom I liked ironicly. =)
I've never prayed about a street name or characters ina book except for a guy named Zaknafein once (SP).

I do appreciate the promised effort with descriptions. It's a text based game and I equate bad descriptions with playing Halo agains Mario characters.

As far as the help with evasion goes, I know the imms can track key strokes so there could have been greater effort there. Everyone needs help once in a while and to be left hanging like that was just one more nail.

In all fairness I did get some help with the barter command not long after it was revamped.

Why hasn't there been a "What is your biggest problem with CF" survey? I could list the largest gripes the players keep rehashing and then an honest evaluation could be made with the data on hand instead of the emotion in heart.

Any way, CF is a release for me so I don't, in truth, put an honest effort at sensoring myself when I shoul.

Thanks Q for the reality check, the complement and the insight and the pipe. (Wish it had been a cigar =) )

>You said:
>
>>Then you're either not paying attention or a complete
>####ing
>idiot. Just one person's opinion.<
>
>I am a complete F-ing idiot and I'm the first to admit it. I
>let my emotions get the better of me at times. When I wrote
>this post It seemed valid, but I was angry over something else
>and I see it bled into this.

Don't sweat it. I really shouldn't be name-calling myself. ;)

>>Pray. If someone hears you and if they agree with you and if
>they can do something about it, they will. Agreeing with you
>is the least of those things, unless you're the guy who keeps
>praying over really obscure things like the character who is
>named after a street near him or someone mentioned in passing
>in some book we've never read.<
>
>I was told not to pray about names, so I don't anymore unless
>it's just glaringly obvious like Thror... whom I liked
>ironicly. =)
>I've never prayed about a street name or characters ina book
>except for a guy named Zaknafein once (SP).
>
>I do appreciate the promised effort with descriptions. It's a
>text based game and I equate bad descriptions with playing
>Halo agains Mario characters.

You can email me directly if you like. I make no promises,
but you're welcome to do so.

>As far as the help with evasion goes, I know the imms can
>track key strokes so there could have been greater effort
>there. Everyone needs help once in a while and to be left
>hanging like that was just one more nail.

Well... different Imms can track things differently. Just
because they can come through as 'An Immortal' doesn't always
mean they can help you in the way you need it.

>In all fairness I did get some help with the barter command
>not long after it was revamped.

It's a roll of the dice who is on and what they're familiar
with. Let's assume the evasion guy and the barter guy were
both me and call it a draw. ;)

>Why hasn't there been a "What is your biggest problem with CF"
>survey? I could list the largest gripes the players keep
>rehashing and then an honest evaluation could be made with the
>data on hand instead of the emotion in heart.

If it's been posted before, we're doing that or have done it.

>Any way, CF is a release for me so I don't, in truth, put an
>honest effort at sensoring myself when I shoul.

Don't worry about it.

>Thanks Q for the reality check, the complement and the insight
>and the pipe. (Wish it had been a cigar =) )

Had there been a cigar in the game, I would have made it a cigar.

"Pray. If someone hears you and if they agree with you and if
they can do something about it, they will. Agreeing with you
is the least of those things, unless you're the guy who keeps
praying over really obscure things like the character who is
named after a street near him or someone mentioned in passing
in some book we've never read."

Ok, about that. There is a character running around now named Molokai. Molokai!! One of the big famous Hawaiian islands. I prayed about it, when he was level 5, and then again 15. And at least one of those times, a high level imm was visible, so I know it was at least heard.

What's up with that? There is nothing obscure about Molokai....

Ive seen multiple character using nordic languages. An example is Guddomelig which basicly mean holy\god\immortal. I just ignore and try to look at how the name sounds to english speaking people. Myself, I have never ever heard of Molokai.

Nameing wise what bugs me is these obvious "ripoffs" of recent chars. If the char are gone, long ago, I dont care.. Like a character named nearly equal to my Hrafnir.

>What's up with that? There is nothing obscure about
>Molokai....

No offense to Hawaii, but I didn't know that. In fact, I could
probably gather the entire staff together and say "Molokai is.."
and none would mention Hawaii but several would say "Uh.. a..
variation on Malakai?" Ok, maybe one of them would. Or two.
But then they'd say "He's not actually named Hawaii, right?".

Obscurity is going to be defined by the people judging it, and
if we don't know it (like the Nordic thing, no idea), some of
them are going to slip through. We pick off a lot of these
through Google, though. We hit 10 renames to every pray about
a name. Easy. We're on the job, we just don't speak Norwegian
or live in Hawaii, among other things.

The one that kills me is the "letter off a character from seven
years ago". My memory for names goes back maybe a year unless
the guy was a real big deal to more than himself. If it has
been years, and none of the Immortals on have any idea
who you're talking about, it may not change. I'm just saying.
If anything help the guy Hero so the name doesn't get re-used
when he goes away. Or kill him off quick and do it yourself. :)

Also, don't complain to Heroimms about names, guys. They can't
do crap about it that praying yourself doesn't take care of,
and it distracts them from their actual duties.

We are renaming people. We are. We're just not hitting all
the names and near-misspellings of names that the combined
playerbase is going to pick up on.

Feel free to e-mail me directly if a name is really paining you.

Qaledus
qaledus@carrionfields.com

I seem to recall a wood-elf ranger named Steve who made it to his mid-20s in rank. While Molokai might throw people off a bit, I cannot see how "Steve the wood-elf ranger" could escape the attention of the immortal staff until his mid-20s. Yes, overworked. Yes, no pay. Yes, a pain in the butt, but I remember a character whom I created whose name came somewhat near Phonecia (three or four letters off or something and I didn't even know it. I just thought it was pretty) and I got tagged with "Change your name" when I was level five. Honestly, I don't really care who has what name or how close it is. It irks me that a player would choose to be unoriginal, but I know there are young kids who play or newbies who don't know any better.

Or do something about it?

If you didn't, you are just as guilty as whomever up there supposedly to monitor names. CF players are just as responsible as the Imms up there for the goings of the MUD. Without players, there are no Imms.

'Nuff said.

>I seem to recall a wood-elf ranger named Steve

Steve's name was changed as soon as someone was on to
do so at the same time he was there to give us a new
one.

And if neo-Steve reads this: keep at it, chief. :)

I made a mess of it on qhcf and I've done it here too, but I get the consistant feeling that the Imm's do not care about the over all feel of the game at all.

Qaledus answered this well.

As for names, here's a small tip I've learned from having to change lots of names:

If you force someone to change their name, it pisses roughly half of them off. People delete over it. New players drop link and don't come back. Etc.

Therefore, I'm only going to change a name if the example is pretty blatant.

Finally, if you scroll back a little, you'll see a conversation where you decided you didn't like some newbie's name choice, bitched him out over the newbie channel about it, and then threw a hissy when you were pulled aside and told to knock it off. Having dealt with you before, I'd bet there were some of your usual racist comments about "fur-en-ers" ruined your CF experience in there as well. My answer to all of that still stands: We're not interested in enforcing a draconian name policy, so you can stop asking.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

It's 100% true that playing cf with a bunch of friends makes it way more fun to play. And in the old days this wasn't looked at as a big deal. Unfortunately, it was a slippery slope. All the things you mentioned are true, is is so bad to run around with a buddy. No way, in fact I think it's way more fun. But the problem was that it was a matter of degree. If a few people from a site get together and all play the same cabal that's not that big of a deal. But here's where it get's bad. Imagine me and my friends put together an uber-gank squad. Maybe the following combinations. Binder Thief, Shaman, Warrior with Bash Legacy. We rank up to hero and then we go around and gang every ####er that we see and full loot them and multi-kill them, well they have no chance. I'm sure you can see how this is a problem. Unfortunately, a lot of the new rules were the classic example of a few people spoiling it for everyone. In other words, the no playing with friends rule sucks for those of us who don't want to abuse it, but protects us from those people who do want to abuse it.

Now, as for your thought that it is _one_ aspect that hurts the number of players in the playerbase. I agree. But I think that you have to keep in mind that lowering the number of players was an unintended side affect of making the game fun to play at all.

Zepachu slinks silently out from the shadows, merely to say this:
-----
As this post was your opinion, such is my reply.

I have played CF since the very beginning, about two weeks after launch time. Sure there have been weeks/months of breaks in there, but for the most part I have played on a consistent basis. For the most part I like what CF has evolved into. It is a more mature game. This isn't going to be everyone's opinion and my advice would be, quite simply, stop flaming the forums with nonsensical utterings... move on to another game. There are literally thousands of FREE MUDs out there... try them.

If you don't like Burger King's french fries, do you fill out comment cards by the dozen, while still eating the fries... hoping that they get better... some day? Or do you go to McDonald's and get their tasty fries instead?

CF's problem is not that it is too hard (syn: challenging).

CF's problem is not that there are too many rules (syn: fair, structured).

CF's #1 problem is that there is little to none Instant Gratification. In this day and age, that's all the mob wants. Play Unreal Tournament, Grand Theft Auto, etc. (I do both.) These games provide instant gratification. The ever-lovely "Heeaaddd Shoottt" from Unreal paralleled with blood squirting out of someone's neck in GTA. We like it.

CF doesn't provide Instant Gratification. You actually have to work for that title, work for that 'quest form', work for this, and work for that. Most people view this as a chore... but the simple fact remains that it is a risk (labor) vs. reward system. You put in the work, you will get the reward.

Maybe I've just been lucky in all my years, but I can count on less than two fingers the amount of times I've been disciplined for 'questionable action' (singular) on CF... and that was just simple stupidity years and years ago. Oh and a "You have got to be kidding me." statement to initiate a name change, which I'm sure I have logged somewhere, when I went nearly 30 ranks, 100+ hours without it being noticed... Elkcuhcapez -> Elkirfe.

Anyway, I don't understand all these posts I see about IMMs coming down hard on people for doing this and that... when I have done the same exact things and not had a word said to me. Could it be because those people were actually doing something wrong? I've traded uber/leet (depending on your age) equipment before... I've GIVEN it out before... and nothing said.

I've grouped with people on a consistent basis and not had a word said to me. Basically, if you get talked to by an IMM you're doing something you're not supposed to (within the confines of the CF world). Sure the IMMs make mistakes, but luckily for us they don't delete or cripple people just because of a hunch. They warn... observe... and act accordingly.

In essence: Carrion Fields is an amazing gaming experience, and as it has been said many times in the past, when the latest trendy game is burnt out... CF will still be here... and you will come back to play it.

To all the Naysayers... Maybe this just isn't your cup of tea. It might be time to try out another gaming outlet, perhaps you'll find something better suited to you... why play a game that is just stressing you out?

You say CF has so blatantly made rules to stop people from using outside resources to their advantage (i.e. gaming buddies)... you say that like it's a bad thing. Yes, they have, and I feel it is better that way.

Carrion Fields may be losing players because of the OOC rings of friends not wanting to have to be "careful" or be forced to not play with each other. To them I say... It's about time you got the hint.

What I have put here is the opinion of 1 CF player that I know in real life and is about the same height and weight as me.

Zepachu

P.S. Yes, I'm still around.

You still around, bud? Nice, keep it up. Sometimes we need the voice of the majority to swing the votes. Often, many players that I know who support and enjoy CF keep quiet. They are the real vets.

See you around.

.

(nt)

I quit playing for years since I got married. Now I'm divorced and
came back. It's amazing how CF is STILL what I remember with all
the good bad and ugly.

Although I probably forgot 80% of my game knowledge it's slowly
coming back. There are been some really awesome changes and
very exciting to get back into the swing of things.

The culture too is far from what it used to be. I don't think
I have seen or witnessed a full loot or even heavy loot once. The
corpse decay system makes it great get back up and get going again.

RL does happen and in todays day of media it's amazing to me how
long standing and still enjoyable/challenging CF still is. Hell I
just joined discord for the first time I'm so behind the curve. Last time I played this game I was aol im to talk to people!

I am able to be lumped in to the crowd of 'people who played but quit'. The reasons I left will be stated here, for easier reading:

Levelling: Takes way too damned long. If I have a role, I don't want to be restricted by having to grind for 4 hours. Though this has been 'addressed' by Immortals with various recommendations, it doesn't help the fact that it takes someone 150 hours to hero. That is really unexcusable and it IS hurting the enjoyment of the game.

Immortals: I believe there is a trend in the immortals who are leaving their positions right now. I count what, 7 who have left in the past 2-3 months? That's crazy. I think something has to be changed in regards to promotion and induction of immortdom. Needs demand changes and I definately see a need.

Community: The community is what is really killing this game. On one side, you have the silent part of the community. These select individuals only chime in when they have something important or positive to say. They are very much the minority. The rest, though there are exceptions, are loudmouths. I will use myself as an example. When I first started playing, I naturally looked for an 'unofficial CF site'. This way, I would be able to learn about stuff that the CF imm's refused to put on the official website.. thus making the game easier to learn. Did I end up a cheater? No. Did QHCF help me? Yes. However, after I started posting on the boards, people began to get VERY personal with things. Simply because I played one character and killed one of theirs, they took it as if I pissed in their cereal or shat in their toast. They would flame and strike down everything I say and when I asked a question - I would usually get some half-witty-assed reply that really just wastes my time. I think this is exactly what is killing the game. A game's success is part coding, part support and part community. The coding is what this game has as a attribute, the rest.. could use some work.

Frankly, it's the levelling that makes me not want to play this game. I only ever have enjoyment out of playing high level characters and thus, would rather spend my time doing something else rather then trying to level to 51 over a course of a few months.

I hope to god the Immortals heed some advice from the playerbase. It always seems that they are very quick to deny something (BY DESIGN) when it should be looked at and examined furthermore. Everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes and we (the playerbase) are understanding with that. We would rather be talked TO, rather then talked DOWN TO.

- Jaynus, returning when things become less of a chore.

Until then, take care Immortals and players.

IMHO, if levelling seems like too much work to you, don't. Make a character which will be fun at any/low levels. I honestly don't think this is that hard.

The only problem with that is that you (the plural you, as in the imms) are not forcing people to level or face increasingly significant penalties. I am not ignoring the obvious rationale that a level 12 warrior is not going to be fit to be the Marshal of the Fortress, but the general rule is you (again, plural) have made a decision that you want people not to level sit, and to hero, or be singled out for not doing so.

An easy example, a level 41 shaman was not allowed to become a sect leader. We're not talking about a level 20 or something, we're talking about someone who is 40+. Why the institutional position that you need to force people to level? You've already put in place a system where the character will need to deal with it because of distention. So why the added negative titles? The withholding of game perks like leadership/quests etc?

Why the institutional position that you need to force people to level? You've already put in place a system where the character will need to deal with it because of distention. So why the added negative titles? The withholding of game perks like leadership/quests etc?

You'll find that the sarcastic titles are reserved for people who are cleaning up on a lower range and going out of their way to avoid ranking up.

As for cabal leadership, it wouldn't make too much sense in a power-themed cabal like Empire if the boss was some mid-ranked guy. Also, cabal leaders are often expected to lead the charge for raids, etc. Several cabals have had leaders in the 30-40 ranks, although they often rank up quickly because they get as much help as they want from other members.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

But you can't say "..going out of their way to avoid ranking up" here because that's exactly what Nep is suggesting, that it's ok to avoid ranking and stay at whatever level you want.

As for those that clean up a lower range, isn't that exactly what distention is meant to handle? Once the person does it too much, he becomes the lower range meat for some higher level guy looking to kill him. It's no longer the lowbie non-leveler that's hunting, but the older now-in-range-because-of-distention character that's the hunter, and the level sitter is the meat.

>But you can't say "..going out of their way to avoid ranking
>up" here because that's exactly what Nep is suggesting, that
>it's ok to avoid ranking and stay at whatever level you want.

Actually, I'm suggesting that it's okay to not make ranking your priority. There's a difference between taking your time and not going out of your way to level, and going out of your way to NOT level.

>Levelling: Takes way too damned long. If I have a role, I
>don't want to be restricted by having to grind for 4 hours.
>Though this has been 'addressed' by Immortals with various
>recommendations, it doesn't help the fact that it takes
>someone 150 hours to hero. That is really unexcusable and it
>IS hurting the enjoyment of the game.

Two observations. First, does it really take that much longer to hero a character now than it did two years ago? Second, at least with most classes, if your only goal is to rank then it shouldn't take 150 hours to hero. Just my opinion. If you wanted, you could always limit yourself to combos that have a particularly easy time with ranking.

>Immortals: I believe there is a trend in the immortals who are
>leaving their positions right now. I count what, 7 who have
>left in the past 2-3 months? That's crazy. I think something
>has to be changed in regards to promotion and induction of
>immortdom. Needs demand changes and I definately see a need.

This I can agree with. And not just because I petered out and couldn't finish my area. Some people enjoy writing them, but I'm guessing they're not the norm. So I question the wisdom of using area creation as the hoop through which each new imm must jump in order to prove their dedication to the staff. That said, I think it would be a shame if the game ever became static to the point where new areas weren't being added at all, so I definitely think someone on staff should whip out a new one every once in a while. I guess if it it really is a job nobody wants to do then it makes sense to dump it on the new guys.

>Community: The community is what is really killing this game.

I'm sure you'll get some agreement from the staff on this one. There's a reason the official forums are moderated to the degree they are.

Don't agree with all of it, but you put your points well.

The main thing I'd argue with though is about ranking.

Sure, ranking can be a drag. However, if you removed ranking (or drastically reduced it) you would completely change the pk environment. That's because only ranking makes people sit still for very long (with a couple of exceptions like spamming vokers, on duty tribs, people in the inn etc.).

now then it was before. I have no clue what your talking about. First off no giant xp hole's. Secondly we have the command called who group, which we never had back in the day, makes finding peole to travel with much easier. Lastly the new command called BARTER. Done right you can rank virtually anywhere and not have to rest at all until rank 40ish.

nt

I often see arguments/questions about people leaving the game. They seem to discount the release of other products which would draw from our player base. Muds are a privimite form of MMORPGs. The proliferation of MMORPGs over the years have been the main factor which keeps the growth of Carrion Fields (and most Muds) in check. This is not to argue that any given commercial MMORPG is better/worse than non-graphical Muds - they each have their strong and weak points. I'm just saying that the same 500,000 or so players who have access to Everquest (and pay for access each month) would be able to play Carrion Fields (which has,probably .02% of that playerbase - 1K players) and/or other Muds - but the lure of graphical enhancements, socialization and a much more fully realized staff (again - this is in no way a knock on the great job the IMM staff here does with the game - it's just a fact that a huge corporation paying dozens of programmers to work full time will have more resources/staff for improving their game than a dozen person staff volunteering their free time to do the same).

With that said, Everquest 2 has been released this week (and I would expect that it would appeal to some of our playerbase, resulting in an attendance downturn) and Worlds of Warcraft is due out by the end of the month (which I would expect to result in another downturn in attendance). Beyond the exodus of a couple of staff members, I'd posit that the release of both of these MMORPGS (the two biggest MMORPG releases in a year since City of Heroes, which did not have necessariy the same genre/target audience as WOW/EQ2/CF) has hit the player base at CF the hardest.

- Mijzu

>Recently I have seen the lowest number of players on CF
>consistantly throughout the day and night, since I started
>playing.

I'll agree with you that the numbers lately have seemed low. Then again, the high is still in the upper 70s. I don't have exact numbers, but I think I remember the highs being in the 90s maybe two years ago. So it's not like we've had a "huge" dropoff all of a sudden.

>With the recent deletion of two very loved immortals of CF,
>and the mass exodus of heroimms and lower level immortals,

Mass exodus? As far as I know the success rate for heroimms has always been fairly low. Maybe I'm just misremembering. It seemed like there was a big glut of people who immed near the same time. Lots didn't make it. C'est la vie.

>With newbies
>stumbling on CF, or through this website, or the mud finder
>website, its more like 20% at most.

I think those without benefit of OOC connections enjoy the game for different reasons. When I first started playing there was no AIM or ICQ. There was IRC, but damned if I knew what that was. So I was pretty much on my own. Man did I get kicked around. But I was so newbieish that there was always something in CF that I'd never done, that I still wanted to do. Get a tat. Interact with an imm. Join a cabal. In particular I remember how hard I worked to get into Masters, interviewing with all five Lord Adepts. (And having to somehow acquire the "secret" knowledge of what constitute each of the "Five Magics"). That's the sort of stuff that kept me going.

At some point I discovered the "greater" CF community and began to form relationships with people outside the game. Yet, somehow, I managed to avoid the temptation to perma with them, trade gear with them, or otherwise get smacked down for rules issues. So I don't think the enforcement of these rules is really a big damper on the social aspect of the game. For me, the social aspect is something exists outside the game.


>Massive cabal wars between
>actual RL factions were an every day occurance. On some of the
>immortal goodbye notes, people outline them in a seeminly
>enjoyable fashion. Although they did, at points take away from
>the roleplaying atmosphere, the wars themselves were the
>highpoint of many players.

Yeah, they were great. Unless you weren't part of one of the "RL factions", in which case you were, to a degree, left out of the loop.

>but then one change
>caused massive havoc and terrible repercusions for playing CF
>socially. Cannot interact with that other person without
>REALLY GOOD reasons. Equipment given over same-site but
>different player, for whatever reason, even is roleplaying
>driven, is a no-no, and anti-cheat code alerts and at the
>least, severe warnings are given out to
>deletion/denial/banning. This change, forcing CF into a single
>person "in a dark room in front of a monitor" kind of game has
>ultimately killed CF and its numbers.

Maybe. I'm not convinced. If so, I'm not sure I miss these folks.

>Older players think like I do, as I have talked to a few.
>Those I played with socially confirmed this idea with me when
>I discussed it with them. They won't play anymore. Its too
>tiresome to be summarily deleted because you are grouped with
>a couple friends for violating this "ambigeous rule".

Pardon my lack of sympathy. If you're getting summarily deleted for simply grouping with someone from your same site, then there's got to be a history of abuse from that site. I'm obviously not in a position to comment on rules violations, but as far as I know there's not even a hard rule against grouping with people from your same site. Just don't group with those people exclusively. Course I could be wrong.

>Older players, like me, do not have newer
>player friends to revitalize ourselves on the game, nor do we
>want to introduce "newbie" people to CF out of not only lack
>of desire, lack of wanting to expose them to this place, but
>fear, instilled directly from immortal set out rules.

Personally, I hesitate to introduce new people to the game because everyone I know who doesn't already play CF thinks it's incredibly geeky to play an online text-based fantasy role-playing game. But that's just me.

>What made CF fun was playing with real life
>friends, talking ####, swapping stories, brutalizing each
>other and others.

Nothing prevents you from owning your RL friend on CF then going on AIM to taunt him over it. Obviously the two of you having knowledge of each others' characters would likely be frowned upon, but it's not really something that's enforcible. What is marginally enforicible is monitoring you both to ensure that you treat each other comparably to how you treat other characters. When you kill your RL buddy's character, do you loot him just like you'd loot someone else? Do you and your RL buddy hunt and/or attack each other at least as diligently as you do other characters? etc.

>Your argument of "this is our game and its private property
>and we make the rules, so don't come if you don't want to" is
>viable and great, except for one thing. Alienate too many
>players, and it will be your sandbox, and you and the 14 other
>immortals (if there are that many at that time) can fight each
>other to all content, but that certainly isn't fun.

Neither is interacting with people who are, essentially, cheating. If the choice were between "not playing CF anymore" or "allowing rampant collusion among players in order to prolong CF's existence" then I'm pretty sure the staff would choose the first option. That's a good thing. It means people have principles, not to mention lives outside the game.

Pardon my lack of sympathy. If you're getting summarily deleted for simply grouping with someone from your same site, then there's got to be a history of abuse from that site. I'm obviously not in a position to comment on rules violations, but as far as I know there's not even a hard rule against grouping with people from your same site. Just don't group with those people exclusively. Course I could be wrong.

You're correct that deletion isn't even in the ballpark for an initial conversation "grouping with someone from your site". You're also correct that grouping with someone from the same site is not necessarily a problem.

It's fairly rare that I check and don't see at least one same-site pair on line. Most of the time, I look, and they're not together. Or I look, and they are together, but I look a little more and it's a fairly rare occurence that is roleplayed effectively. Then I go do other things. You're absolutely correct that if you don't carry the OOC side into the game, no one will pull you aside for the rules talk.

If we do see a permagroup starting, we like to catch them early, and give the standard "Don't group with each other for a while." talk. Since there are hundreds of active character files at any one time, and dozens of them are online, having to avoid one single person isn't a problem, unless you're really depending on that perma lovin', in which case it was probably good that we stepped in early.

Unless you're doing something very abusive, or we keep having the same conversation with your characters, that's the standard talk. "Avoid that one guy for a while."

At some point I discovered the "greater" CF community and began to form relationships with people outside the game. Yet, somehow, I managed to avoid the temptation to perma with them, trade gear with them, or otherwise get smacked down for rules issues. So I don't think the enforcement of these rules is really a big damper on the social aspect of the game. For me, the social aspect is something exists outside the game.

This is a pretty standard story we get from new applicants to the staff. They talk to some people outside the game, but they know how to draw lines, and (shockingly) they've never been pulled for a rules violation, except that one time in 1996 when they multi-ed over a shaman's robe. They give us some character names, we do a little homework, and we figure out that they're telling the truth.

Put another way, if you're a frequent flyer in the Realm of the Dead, it's your own fault. Too many people play here for years and never see the inside of that room for me to believe that there's a horde of mean old imms pulling people at random.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I used to be able to MUD from work. Now I can't. I used to MUD continuously for 4-5 hours per day. I got married. Then I used to be able to MUD 1-2 per day. I got a kid. I got promoted at work, I changed job, I've a house loan to repay, my expenses have gone up, I've hit 33 going on 34, yada-yada.

What were you saying again? CF is harder? Nah. Just more challenging. But did you see the similarities there between work (firewall) and CF? Damn bloody hackers, viruses and cheaters. They forced companies to prohibit MUD-ding! And I can go on and go about my company's polices and the government and the bloody hackers, etc.

The truth is:
How CF evolves depends a lot on the player base. Because the players abuse the freedom, it was taken away. People cheat, perma, gang and gang again and then re-gang again, pass equipments to newbie players, reveal quests and hidden stuff, and on-and-on.

If CF were is to survive for the next decade or so, the policies have to be in place, to bloody weed out those who want a damn shortcut thru' cheating. If not, I won't be seeing CF anymore.

Players are becoming smarter and smarter. Too easy, people quit. Too hard, people quit. It's not easy getting a balance. There are and will be lots of tweaking. But I hope the player base understands.

This is to the current players :
Take it with a good natured attitude. If you really want to make a difference, be an Imm.

an experienced player who has played cabal leaders and other chars with quest skills etc.

I suggested that the reason for the drop off is that cf is harder. The stupid overpowered skills are being removed and/or toned down. The cheating gangs (call them social groups if you want, but remember that many were groups designed to complement each other in pk and always on hand to gather the uber gear) have become less of a problem.

Personally, I think people are leaving because you roll up what you think is the kick-ass char, and it doesn't kick ass any more.

Oh, and that's not to mention that at some stage real life has to take center stage, for example, when you have a kid.

>an experienced player who has played cabal leaders and other
>chars with quest skills etc.
>
>I suggested that the reason for the drop off is that cf is
>harder. The stupid overpowered skills are being removed
>and/or toned down. The cheating gangs (call them social
>groups if you want, but remember that many were groups
>designed to complement each other in pk and always on hand to
>gather the uber gear) have become less of a problem.
>
>Personally, I think people are leaving because you roll up
>what you think is the kick-ass char, and it doesn't kick ass
>any more.
>
>Oh, and that's not to mention that at some stage real life has
>to take center stage, for example, when you have a kid.

What I am saying is that social interaction is a proven fact of enjoyment of games/situations. And that is a main reason for the downfall of players. It may be bad, yes, social groups playing together, but what is worse, them playing together or no game at all?

The difference is, we tried that experiment, and we know where it lead- groups of six guys sitting in a lab somewhere, cleaning out their PK range with a pre-designed group. If you scroll down Gameplay a bit, you'll see what a hot topic ganging is, and how much the playerbase dislikes when other people beat them in unfair fights. (Portions of the playerbase are apparently OK with winning unfair fights, or there wouldn't be a problem.)

Allowing permagroups will necessarily lead to more gangs. Also, for every person who is helped by your perspective (a 'mentoring' permagroup), you're going to have a person who finds the game, wants to play, and soon figures out that they can't compete alone. The PK side of things would devolve into "Who has the most OOC connections". The current rules don't eliminate that problem entirely, but they do work against it.

I think you're misidentifying the problem, in any case. The factors Qaledus mentions below are a lot more believable to me.



valguarnera@carrionfields.com

You see people playing as a social group as something that is inherently bad, evil, wrong, incorrect, aka cheating.

The internet makes it difficult to figure out who is cheating and who is just playing with a couple friends. I understand that difficulty. I also believe that your current mindset has blinded you to the current trend in gaming on all levels and in all aspects of life. Please tell me a good way that I can socially play CF? There is no way. I cannot have my roommate/brother/sister/friend play from my site when I play or I will be smacked down, severely. Your rules you have in place state that there can be no interaction at all. Even in the same cabal, the simplest "infraction" meaning giving a piece of equipment to another same site individual is seen as, at the very least, a direct violation that warrants a ROTD transfer and warning.

Your comment of,

Allowing permagroups will necessarily lead to more gangs. Also, for every person who is helped by your perspective (a 'mentoring' permagroup), you're going to have a person who finds the game, wants to play, and soon figures out that they can't compete alone.

Is, on its face, and examined, a needless and ultimately self (CF) destroying position. First, the "stay" rate of individuals who are shown CF by another friend in real life, and are able to group with that person, and get help from them, is by far astronomically higher than a random individual who happens on CF through mud finder/blind luck/CF internet friend. Therefore, you retain a much higher number of individuals at CF through this kind of "mentoring" system than you do anywhere else. That much can be agreed on.

Second, ganging, in itself, happens, no matter what, which is what you also fail to understand. People are going to side up and gang even if they do or do not know each other in real life. People time logins when they find a time that is advantageous to themselves or find an individual who they "gang" well with. Its rampant. People look for the ideal, and when they find it, exploit it. I can certainly rattle off, right now, a list of 7 or 8 "permagroups" who most likely do not know each other in real life, but have same playing times. Who log on at the same time, just from experience, to "clean" up their pk. Some are imperial, some are outlander, some are battle, some are maran, and some are just plain non-affiliated people. Its there, exists, and continues.

Also, dealing with ganging, individuals are usually hooked, through the "peer-mentoring" idea way before they experience the ganging situation. From a manager's point of view, who is seeking players, get them hooked, and let those who cannot handle it filter out. Most will stay and suck it up, and maybe, heaven for bid, get their own personal social circle hooked on CF. And you know what happens? At any time and day, you won't have group A dominating because group B and group C are there causing havoc too, all in the same PK (Hero), all rumbling each other, all creating an air of competition. Individuals who play the game can always be recruited IC to tip the scales, or do their own ganging. To be honest, if the CF immortal staff thought this bad of "ganging" it would have been removed as an option. It has not.

Third, you are also turning a blind eye to what gaming is becoming. It is not the "sit in a dark room in front of a monitor and mud" world. It really never has. Humans are social creatures, and thus the games they play are social in nature. What is the replay value of, lets say, Final Fantasy 5? You beat it, its over. How about Metal Gear Solid 2? Beat it, its over, wait for the next. Games like Halo, Unreal Tournament, Diablo, Never Winter Nights, etc., are bound in the idea that although you beat it, you can always play with your friends and try new things. Its a reality, a reality that the immortals fail to understand.

Fourth, what you also don't grasp is that neosoft, smug, entropy gangbang possie, etc., not only logged in all at once every week or so, but also logged in by themselves more than that, constructively adding to the player base on exactly the same level as you wanted. Not only do you have to pander to the people who want to compete by themselves no matter what, but you also have to pander to the social player who does not want to make CF their "####ing" job. CF is a timesink, and I think if immortals were not so brutally, and horribly tough holding up these current (outdated) rules, you would see a lot more social players, and therefore a lot more players in general.

Lastly, answer me this, just for fun's sake. How did the immortals (current) and mortals of CF get hooked on it? I'm willing to bank Valg that you learned this game through a real life friend who showed you the ropes, or at least alerted you to the game and its general rules/guidelines. That you talked to this individual about the game and went from there. I'm betting 80% of CF population (who stayed longer than 6 months) is like this. I know I'm like this, I know Smug is like this, I know Neosoft is like this, I know so many players like this. If you are going to John Kerry this and take a poll, it would show you exactly what I'm saying here. And I am also not speaking out of the blue, I have taken the time to speak to a number of CF players and former players, because i wanted to know, and here is the answer.

Solution. I am a firm believer that if you reject the current set of rules you offer a solution, even rough. Get rid of the hard and brutal rules that people cannot play from the same site. Allow a low level of peer assistance and grouping. Allow social players to exist on CF, because right now, if you are not willing ot dedicate 10 or more hours a week to CF, you can summarily eliminate yourself from the CF community. Especially if you are seeking a leader position, or any other position of somewhat enjoyment besides grunt. The game does not pander to the social gamer at all. Those who are rewarded the most? Those who spend the most time online dedicated to CF (or have immortal ties, but I'm not bringing that up here). The guy who spends 20 hours a week on CF is going to be chosen as leader over the guy who spends 5 hours. That is a proven, and illustrated fact. Examine some of your own immortal comments and its proven right there. The social gamer has no place anywhere in CF except as the fodder guy. This leads me into incognito's point.

And one last point. Something that alienates both younger and older players alike. The seemingly unlevel playing field when it comes to rewards. You have leaders of some cabals who get 4 quest powers. Those under him gets 1 quest power each (Empire). You have Tribunal where each position has its own set of quest powers. You have Battle, where their leaders get summarily nothing except a leader weapon (maybe if the immortals are up for it). You have Scion who gets a "supposed" bonus to their powers, but as the leader you have no clue at all, nor see any real benefit from it. And then you have Outlander who I will not comment on here yet, to maintain game secrets and respect for the immortals, but the hoops that need to be jumped through are astronomical in nature. And then you have Fortress whose leaders not only get a leader weapon, but at some point, some kind of leader power. Where is the continuity to this? The immortal position has always been don't play the character for quest powers. Yet for some reason Cabal A and B have Hardcoded quest powers they get, yet Cabal C, D, and E have none to speak of.

People quest for greatness. People want cool quest powers, people want to feel special in nature. Why not reward leaders equally? In a world where the extra 20 minutes of doing the "hard stuff" gets you something, when someone drops 500+ hours on a chararacter and adds dramatically to the CF environment and gets the goodbye thread of, "I was away but was going to reward you with something, but you aged died, great character, keep trucking." leaves an awful taste in the mouth of the player.

A lot of things to think about. Including what Qaledus stated, which is also factors. And keep in mind that those factors should not be an issue if CF was keeping up with the social gaming environment it had 7 to 8 years ago, where uni enrollment meant an upswing in numbers, not a downswing. At some point you have to grasp the fact that you need to attract younger, newer players, because us old vets are dying off quick (I being close to first in line).

>You see people playing as a social group as something that is
>inherently bad, evil, wrong, incorrect, aka cheating.

On the topic of perma or social grouping in CF, I've been a victim of them many a times. Necro summon, bard sleep (necro sleep if bard fail) and warrior waiting to bash or trip. I hated them.

It's not the social aspects as in your brother/roomate playing, but the high frequency of these 'combo' power that makes a day sucky for a player. The worst is they log in within minutes and then wipe out the pk range. Then they share loot and rank a bit and log out. Only to do that half a day later.

From my understanding (short time Heroimm), the Imms monitor closely before pulling the plug. They send these people to ROTD and forewarn them about grouping every other times. Do they listen? Well, I don't know.

>Allowing permagroups will necessarily lead to more gangs.
>Also, for every person who is helped by your perspective (a
>'mentoring' permagroup), you're going to have a person who
>finds the game, wants to play, and soon figures out that they
>can't compete alone.

Gangs are fine. We have all seen it in another unofficial forum. In CF, gangs are allowed, though if too frequent, frowned upon. The basis of CF is this : Pk and Rp. You are going to die and die a lot (to gangs, mobs, solo, what-have-yous). You are going to get good stuff with good Rp.

Grouping is encouraged which also mean there will always be gangs. Solo is meant to vets or elite players, who know game mechanics, preps and all. It's like the real world, go solo and face a stack of challenges. Possible? You bet. It's easier to go in groups/cabals and less frustrating.

>Second, ganging, in itself, happens, no matter what, which is
>what you also fail to understand. People are going to side up

Like I've said, gangs are fine. But not perma group. There is a thin line. Have you played counterstrike online where the same players keep grouping together? Keep covering for each other while one snipes at you? You keep going, what the...?!! And the funny thing is they keep doing it over and over again, in every scenerio.

Fun for them? Yeah. Fun for you? Big NO! Probably you'll quit the session and join another.

Note that people from the same area are not going to get called up every time. I believe the Imms have more things important (like coding and immteraction) than to keep pulling out cheats. They will monitor and if it is too frequent, they step in. I think you are going overboard on this perma-social grouping.

>Also, dealing with ganging, individuals are usually hooked,
>through the "peer-mentoring" idea way before they experience
>the ganging situation. From a manager's point of view, who is
>seeking players, get them hooked, and let those who cannot

Disagree. I was not hooked from perma or social. Ganging was nice, but left a foul taste after. Someone introduced me CF online. I tried, I was hooked. ICQ/IRC/Email/Gathering - none of those sort. I was playing as a hobby and that brought online social friendship. Met anyone online in RL? Yeah once in my whole 9 years of CF.

>Third, you are also turning a blind eye to what gaming is
>becoming. It is not the "sit in a dark room in front of a
>monitor and mud" world. It really never has. Humans are social
>creatures, and thus the games they play are social in nature.
>What is the replay value of, lets say, Final Fantasy 5? You
>beat it, its over. How about Metal Gear Solid 2? Beat it, its
>over, wait for the next. Games like Halo, Unreal Tournament,
>Diablo, Never Winter Nights, etc., are bound in the idea that
>although you beat it, you can always play with your friends
>and try new things. Its a reality, a reality that the
>immortals fail to understand.

Here you contradict yourself, as per below point about wanting uber powers and also linear quest about A, B, C cabals, etc.

>Solution. I am a firm believer that if you reject the current
>*snipped*
>immortal ties, but I'm not bringing that up here). The guy who
>spends 20 hours a week on CF is going to be chosen as leader
>over the guy who spends 5 hours. That is a proven, and

I agree with you on this one. It's going to be like this for a lot of online games. Show up and get reward. It's part of gaming, can't change it. I mean who will want to apply for a cabal if the leader is not going to show up?

>it comes to rewards. You have leaders of some cabals who get 4
>quest powers. Those under him gets 1 quest power each
>*snipped*
>have Fortress whose leaders not only get a leader weapon, but
>at some point, some kind of leader power. Where is the
>continuity to this? The immortal position has always been
>don't play the character for quest powers. Yet for some reason
>Cabal A and B have Hardcoded quest powers they get, yet Cabal
>C, D, and E have none to speak of.

You said people are social gamers. People want to feel they earn it. Yet in every promotion, not everyone is promoted. Just because I did this and this, I'm going to get promoted to leader.

Being a leader or outstanding character != more benefits or special treatment.

A leader is also a member. Most leaders get nice stuff. But basically they do earn them. If a leader cannot feel like he's part of the team and he needs a special quest/power to feel like a leader, he's not a good leader. Period.

Well, how a person gets rewarded also depends on the way he conducts himself with his peers and highers.

As for why a leader's power is coded and some doesn't, is just as much as your social point. Some people don't want linear, off-the-book rewards. Some do. If you want expected power which comes with being a leader, then join that cabal. If you don't want, join the other cabal.

>People quest for greatness. People want cool quest powers,
>people want to feel special in nature. Why not reward leaders
>equally? In a world where the extra 20 minutes of doing the

Erm, don't think CF is unique if it comes to this. Everyone will know what a leader gets, where is the 'discover and find out yourself'?

>"hard stuff" gets you something, when someone drops 500+ hours
>on a chararacter and adds dramatically to the CF environment
>and gets the goodbye thread of, "I was away but was going to
>reward you with something, but you aged died, great character,
>keep trucking." leaves an awful taste in the mouth of the
>player.

Greatness or glory is quite relative. One may see himself great but the majority does not, does not mean he is. I agree that people want cool powers, feel-special-I-am-powerful feelings. But you must know not everyone can handle that power. Remember Spider-Man? Yeah those cheesy lines Uncle Ben said.

The Imms can give out rewards like freebies. Then where is the challenge? I'd rather feel I've earned those rewards. Too easy rewards and I'll be looking for another game.

>gaming environment it had 7 to 8 years ago, where uni
>enrollment meant an upswing in numbers, not a downswing. At

7, 8 years ago, there was no MMORPG. Broadband Internet connection was near non-existant. Everything was much slower, and there were little reports on on-line hacking/cheating.

We have moved on.

>some point you have to grasp the fact that you need to attract
>younger, newer players, because us old vets are dying off
>quick (I being close to first in line).

True, totally agree. Game mechanics have changed so much and there is also a lot of competition as compared to last time. It's not that vets are dying off, but that they have social RL activities. We grow up and move on.

Younger gen has lots of other activities to do like MMORPG, more nifty games, more school work, more movies, more $$$ to earn. Well, the list goes on. Life was much simpler in the past.

You need a breather just like me. Play other games or read fantasy book. Soon, you'll be thinking up a new character and then you'll find yourself rolling one. And enjoying it.

>You see people playing as a social group as something that is
>inherently bad, evil, wrong, incorrect, aka cheating.
>
>The internet makes it difficult to figure out who is cheating
>and who is just playing with a couple friends. I understand
>that difficulty. I also believe that your current mindset has
>blinded you to the current trend in gaming on all levels and
>in all aspects of life. Please tell me a good way that I can
>socially play CF? There is no way. I cannot have my
>roommate/brother/sister/friend play from my site when I play
>or I will be smacked down, severely. Your rules you have in
>place state that there can be no interaction at all. Even in
>the same cabal, the simplest "infraction" meaning giving a
>piece of equipment to another same site individual is seen as,
>at the very least, a direct violation that warrants a ROTD
>transfer and warning.
>

What stops you playing opposing sides? Why do you have to play the same side? I play sports against my mates, and enjoy it. I don't have to pick a sport that lets us be on the same side.

>Your comment of,
>
>Allowing permagroups will necessarily lead to more gangs.
>Also, for every person who is helped by your perspective (a
>'mentoring' permagroup), you're going to have a person who
>finds the game, wants to play, and soon figures out that they
>can't compete alone.
>
>Is, on its face, and examined, a needless and ultimately self
>(CF) destroying position. First, the "stay" rate of
>individuals who are shown CF by another friend in real life,
>and are able to group with that person, and get help from
>them, is by far astronomically higher than a random individual
>who happens on CF through mud finder/blind luck/CF internet
>friend. Therefore, you retain a much higher number of
>individuals at CF through this kind of "mentoring" system than
>you do anywhere else. That much can be agreed on.
>

Can it? I'm not convinced. I think you are comparing apples and oranges, because when people were introducing others they knew to cf in a big way, a mud did not face the kind of competition from online graphical games that it does now.

>Second, ganging, in itself, happens, no matter what, which is
>what you also fail to understand.

No one fails to understand that.


> People are going to side up
>and gang even if they do or do not know each other in real
>life.

But they can't rely on not being betrayed. For example, when their gang has cleared out the range and decides to gather gear, they can't be sure that Fred the necro isn't going to loot all the gear and refuse to turn it over (like my necro did).

> People time logins when they find a time that is
>advantageous to themselves or find an individual who they
>"gang" well with. Its rampant. People look for the ideal, and
>when they find it, exploit it.

I'm sure it happens, but I think you are describing the kind of behavior that should be stamped out and using it to justify organised ganging.

> I can certainly rattle off,
>right now, a list of 7 or 8 "permagroups" who most likely do
>not know each other in real life, but have same playing times.

True. These kind of groups always do exist, but they at least have to go through the bond forming process that might occur in a real fantasy world, instead of meeting up and being tight from the start.

>Who log on at the same time, just from experience, to "clean"
>up their pk. Some are imperial, some are outlander, some are
>battle, some are maran, and some are just plain non-affiliated
>people. Its there, exists, and continues.
>

And it was condemned when a certain paladin admitted to doing it (selecting login times) in order to get himself a nice set.

>Also, dealing with ganging, individuals are usually hooked,
>through the "peer-mentoring" idea way before they experience
>the ganging situation.

Peer mentoring can be done ic, and doesn't require you telling them they have to perfect defenses in place X and supplying them with a full list of maps. I've taken plenty of newer players under my metaphorical wing that I have no idea who they are ooc. Would it be accurate to guess that you probably don't bother?

> From a manager's point of view, who is
>seeking players, get them hooked, and let those who cannot
>handle it filter out.

So... from a manager's point of view, I should allow a cliquey office environment to develop, and let those who can't handle it quit or lead miserable lives?

> Most will stay and suck it up, and
>maybe, heaven for bid, get their own personal social circle
>hooked on CF.

I agree with Isildur. The reason I don't introduce people to cf is I don't know anyone in rl that would not consider it the most geeky activity possible.

? And you know what happens? At any time and day,
>you won't have group A dominating because group B and group C
>are there causing havoc too, all in the same PK (Hero), all
>rumbling each other, all creating an air of competition.

More likely you will have vet group A deciding that vet group B is too tough and raping newbie group C, with the uber gear that they can get since they rolled up healer + voker together whilst newbie group is comprised of 4 elf spear/staff specs.

>Individuals who play the game can always be recruited IC to
>tip the scales, or do their own ganging. To be honest, if the
>CF immortal staff thought this bad of "ganging" it would have
>been removed as an option. It has not.
>

That's because it has to be "earnt". And imms have stepped in to prevent some gangings too. Thror prevented one of my groups ganking a rager.

>Third, you are also turning a blind eye to what gaming is
>becoming. It is not the "sit in a dark room in front of a
>monitor and mud" world. It really never has. Humans are social
>creatures, and thus the games they play are social in nature.
>What is the replay value of, lets say, Final Fantasy 5? You
>beat it, its over. How about Metal Gear Solid 2? Beat it, its
>over, wait for the next. Games like Halo, Unreal Tournament,
>Diablo, Never Winter Nights, etc., are bound in the idea that
>although you beat it, you can always play with your friends
>and try new things. Its a reality, a reality that the
>immortals fail to understand.
>

For some people is it a form of competition. That's evident from the forum posts. Personally, I like sports not only because of the social side, but also for the competition. The reason I play cf is for the competition as much as anything. Your social side damages the competition. I'm still not sure why you feel you need to play on the same team as your friends in order to enjoy cf together. Probably because it helps you beat the competition.

>Fourth, what you also don't grasp is that neosoft, smug,
>entropy gangbang possie, etc., not only logged in all at once
>every week or so, but also logged in by themselves more than
>that, constructively adding to the player base on exactly the
>same level as you wanted.

Wrong. Being logged in by yourself does not mean competing on a level playing field. If your AP logs in alone after his "friends" helped him get fire control, it is not the same as getting fire control without your friends, and then logging in alone. It is not the same when your friends set you up with a sweet set to use, whilst the other guys are using basic stuff.

> Not only do you have to pander to
>the people who want to compete by themselves no matter what,
>but you also have to pander to the social player who does not
>want to make CF their "####ing" job.

Agree that cf is a timesink, but to paraphrase, cf is too hard for you to do without your friends. Again, would it be a "job" if you and your friends were in different cabals?

> CF is a timesink, and I
>think if immortals were not so brutally, and horribly tough
>holding up these current (outdated) rules, you would see a lot
>more social players, and therefore a lot more players in
>general.
>

I think I've seen more new players recently than I can remember seeing for a long time, and some of them, despite not being able to walk from Arkham to Udgaard, have better rp and more heart in pk than most vets.

>Lastly, answer me this, just for fun's sake. How did the
>immortals (current) and mortals of CF get hooked on it? I'm
>willing to bank Valg that you learned this game through a real
>life friend who showed you the ropes, or at least alerted you
>to the game and its general rules/guidelines. That you talked
>to this individual about the game and went from there. I'm
>betting 80% of CF population (who stayed longer than 6 months)
>is like this. I know I'm like this, I know Smug is like this,
>I know Neosoft is like this, I know so many players like this.

Yes. But you are talking a different era. Otherwise we'd all probably have been playing something graphical instead and uninterested in muds. Most of us probably only play muds now because we didn't have the alternatives until after we'd tried muds.

>If you are going to John Kerry this and take a poll, it would
>show you exactly what I'm saying here.

Would it? Personally I find that those going against the establishment are always more likely to be vocal (in this case vote). Also, I seem to recall that last time we did this, people were caught voting multiple times.

? And I am also not
>speaking out of the blue, I have taken the time to speak to a
>number of CF players and former players, because i wanted to
>know, and here is the answer.
>

But you are speaking to the subset of those that feel this way. You haven't, for example, got this view from me, or Isildur.

>Solution. I am a firm believer that if you reject the current
>set of rules you offer a solution, even rough. Get rid of the
>hard and brutal rules that people cannot play from the same
>site. Allow a low level of peer assistance and grouping.

This is the problem. The level does not stay low because the players don't have the self-control. Need I list things like the sylvan perma-squad, the organised hell-trips, the lists of abs being circulated?

> Allow
>social players to exist on CF, because right now, if you are
>not willing ot dedicate 10 or more hours a week to CF, you can
>summarily eliminate yourself from the CF community.

Why? Is 3 hours per week not enough to keep a knowledge of tactics, gear, and areas? I think it is. What you can't do is walk to the right spot in the new area and collect all the unique gear, because you haven't had time to be the first to explore it. But you can still explore it during your 3 hours, if you want. If you don't want, then live without the gear. It's not that bad.

> Especially
>if you are seeking a leader position, or any other position of
>somewhat enjoyment besides grunt.

You should not be a leader if you don't put the time in. A leader IS a job, even if you fail to realise it. It isn't just recognition and powers. It's an administrative job as well.

> The game does not pander to
>the social gamer at all. Those who are rewarded the most?
>Those who spend the most time online dedicated to CF (or have
>immortal ties, but I'm not bringing that up here).

If be rewarded you mean "leadership" then yes, I agree with the time spent on cf. But I disagree that that is wrong. A leader needs to be on a lot. Otherwise they are not around to lead. So you don't play much and you don't get to lead. Big deal. That's like complaining that even though you only train (in whatever sport you do) one day a week that it is unfair not to make you captain of the team, because you are friends with half of the team.

> The guy who
>spends 20 hours a week on CF is going to be chosen as leader
>over the guy who spends 5 hours. That is a proven, and
>illustrated fact. Examine some of your own immortal comments
>and its proven right there.

Yep. Whereas you are saying that the guy only on for 5 hours should be leader. But let's remember, you don't want cf to be a "job", so you won't be spending all your five hours on leading the cabal. I'm sorry, but leading a cabal takes more than 5 hours of time a week, and if you can't put that in, you won't be leading it properly, and thus you would make a bad choice for leader.

> The social gamer has no place
>anywhere in CF except as the fodder guy.

So... was Dwoggurd a fodder guy? I don't remember him being leader. Was my assassin Lokrin fodder? I don't remember him being leader of anything besides what he created himself. Plenty of uncaballed has been successful without relying on anyone. You aren't just "fodder" if you or your friends haven't got a leadership position between you.

Are you trying to claim that the guy that puts in 20 hours of time shouldn't get a leadership position because you want it and you put in 5 hours?


This leads me into
>incognito's point.
>
>And one last point. Something that alienates both younger and
>older players alike. The seemingly unlevel playing field when
>it comes to rewards. You have leaders of some cabals who get 4
>quest powers.

Agreed. I think the problem is one of perception as much as reality though. I do think that some characters (not sure how they connect to players) get favored over others. However, there is also a lot of "hear-say" that misleads about powers. For example, people saying that Daurwyn could see duo, whereas I only located duo people by use of the clairaudience spell giving a feedback loop when you shared a room with a duo'ed person and made some noise. However, you call these powers quest powers. Are they quest powers? That's like saying getting stronger nightwalkers is a quest power.

> Those under him gets 1 quest power each
>(Empire).

Not sure I'd call it a quest power.

> You have Tribunal where each position has its own
>set of quest powers. You have Battle, where their leaders get
>summarily nothing except a leader weapon (maybe if the
>immortals are up for it).

Oh. Is it just rumor that a leader berserker gets a stronger deathblow?

> You have Scion who gets a "supposed"
>bonus to their powers, but as the leader you have no clue at
>all, nor see any real benefit from it.

So, if the chances of chancellor being summoned are cut to a quarter of the norm, that makes it bad, just because they can't put their finger on it?

> And then you have
>Outlander who I will not comment on here yet, to maintain game
>secrets and respect for the immortals, but the hoops that need
>to be jumped through are astronomical in nature. And then you
>have Fortress whose leaders not only get a leader weapon, but
>at some point, some kind of leader power. Where is the
>continuity to this? The immortal position has always been
>don't play the character for quest powers. Yet for some reason
>Cabal A and B have Hardcoded quest powers they get, yet Cabal
>C, D, and E have none to speak of.
>

Well, for me, the quest power (not that I'd call it that) makes up for the fact that you spend 10 hours a week sitting on your ass making the rest of the cabal work. Talking with applicants, setting disputes, clarifying policy, politicing with other cabals, disciplining people that stepped out of line, motivating your cabal, dealing with notes, handling lvl1 jerks that tell you they are going to multi-kill all your applicants since they can't kill you, and generally being a target. As Daurwyn, I died more times in the three days after getting made leader than I did in the 250 hours or so before getting made leader, and in every case it was because of my leadership duties (i.e. I got jumped whilst interviewing someone, speaking to a mob, or defending another cabal to try to get their alliance). The quest power makes that bearable.

So I understand the argument for leaders getting a power, but not for someone that will only be on 5 hours a week, and doesn't consider being leader as a job. Also, your hidden characters can get away with putting less into leadership, since they can't be contacted whilst hidden/duo/camo/chamo.

>People quest for greatness. People want cool quest powers,
>people want to feel special in nature. Why not reward leaders
>equally?

I am not sure that leaders should be rewarded equally, because some leaders are better than others. However, I do agree that there could be an imbalance in giving all leaders of cabal A a power automatically when they are stronger than cabal B, whose leader almost certainly gets nothing. Fortress, for example, do seems to get a lot of custom weapons, and the Emperor is extremely strong with the combo of powers he/she gets. But I don't believe that means that an outlander leader automatically deserves a corresponding power, or that the fortressites with weapons do not deserve them. Nor do I believe that it makes or breaks a char to get a reward.

> In a world where the extra 20 minutes of doing the
>"hard stuff" gets you something, when someone drops 500+ hours
>on a chararacter and adds dramatically to the CF environment
>and gets the goodbye thread of, "I was away but was going to
>reward you with something, but you aged died, great character,
>keep trucking." leaves an awful taste in the mouth of the
>player.
>

It does, but at the same time, do you honestly blame the person in question? I don't think Agarah blamed the imms when he aged died just after getting his lich quest. I mean, cf isn't meant to be a job, is it, so imms can't be expected to be on hand all the time. Also, if questy things get given out easily, then they cease to become special.

For example, a title in a cabal that rarely gets titled is more special than one in a cabal where everyone gets titled, is it not?

>A lot of things to think about. Including what Qaledus stated,
>which is also factors. And keep in mind that those factors
>should not be an issue if CF was keeping up with the social
>gaming environment it had 7 to 8 years ago, where uni
>enrollment meant an upswing in numbers, not a downswing.

The world has moved on since then. Muds are old. Just as classic cars are only driven by a minority of people relative to modern cars, so the mud is only the choice of a minority of people when they have an increasing choice of modern alternatives.

> At some point you have to grasp the fact that you need to attract
>younger, newer players, because us old vets are dying off
>quick (I being close to first in line).
>
>

I think this is bound to happen anyway, unless you expect us to all be playing in our fifties. However, there do seem to be lots of younger, newer players. Maybe the fact that they only play 5 hours per week instead of 20 is why the overall numbers are down? I doubt it, but it is possible. I suspect that muds, in general, are going to decline, but that's the environment they operate in.

>
>
>
>

>Can it? I'm not convinced. I think you are comparing apples
>and oranges, because when people were introducing others they
>knew to cf in a big way, a mud did not face the kind of
>competition from online graphical games that it does now.

Half-life and it's likes have been around since since 199X, so has ultima online, everquest,warcraft etc. The only graphical game i see challenging is the World of Warcraft since a huge chunk of players is suddenly talking about it. I've not once seen someones leaving note saying they were off because of a graphical game. Remember as well that the majority of players that come to CF were students, they can't run a graphical game and get away with it.

Of course that just leads me to question who is CF's target audience and what is "Valg" doing to bring them in? (as opposed to just shaping CF to suit his playing style)

>I've not onceseen someones leaving note saying they were off >because of a graphical game. Remember as well that the majority of >players that come to CF were students, they can't run a graphical >game and get away with it.

Consider this the first, even if it is 6-8 years after the fact. After CF, I played EQ, AC, AO, and COH. I still lurk quite a bit, and have had a few abortive attempts at characters over the years when inspiration hits. I think I'm in the minority here regarding play - I create a character when I have a really strong idea/persona I want to try out, and not just to 'play the game' or 'try out classes'. The closest I've come to playing again was a couple of years ago when I created a character who was intentionally profanity laden. Unfortunately, he was a little over the line and I was advised nicely by an immortal to tone it down. I tried running the character for another day or so, but he didn't feel right using euphamisms instead of straight curse words. I deleted that character - but I want to make it clear that it was because I felt like I couldn't accurately portray a character I came to play, and not because of any ill will towards the Immortal (who had every right to let me know that my character's language was over the line).


- Mijzu

Half-life was released in October 1998. Everquest in March 1999. Warcraft and Warcraft II came out in 1994 and 1995 respectively, but they didn't start infringing on CF territory until June 1996 when Battle.net was released.

All of these (and other titles like them) are much more widespread than they used to be, to the point where it's viable now to hook up to a random server online and start fragging away. I'm not certain, not having been a part of that "scene" at the time, but I don't think this was the case in 1998 when Half-life was first released. You generally had to assemble a group of players on your own and find your own LAN to play on.

As for other games that compete with CF, I've heard people mention Diablo II, Neverwinter Nights, Guild Wars and City of Heros in addition to the most recent World of Warcraft craze.

Carrion Fields, for its part, came out in Spring 1994, so it predates the earliest of these by two and a quarter years.

My take on the whole "graphical competition" argument is this. It isn't that existing players are defecting in order to play graphical online environments, it's that potential new players are showing a preference for these alternatives instead of text-based environment (with an extremely high learning curve) like CF. There is always going to be player turnover. People leave, new people arrive. In the past the outflow has always equaled the inflow; that may not always be the case.

>All of these (and other titles like them) are much more
>widespread than they used to be, to the point where it's
>viable now to hook up to a random server online and start
>fragging away. I'm not certain, not having been a part of
>that "scene" at the time, but I don't think this was the case
>in 1998 when Half-life was first released. You generally had
>to assemble a group of players on your own and find your own
>LAN to play on.
>
>As for other games that compete with CF, I've heard people
>mention Diablo II, Neverwinter Nights, Guild Wars and City of
>Heros in addition to the most recent World of Warcraft craze.

Umm, half-life came out with a tool included for locating games. I was able to play online as soon as i completed the real game. I only got involved in clan play when i moved to dublin (and beat half the all-irish clan) and couldn't be arsed cf'ing..

I'm willing to be wrong.

Maybe I was thinking of the original Doom game? I remember getting busted for using one of my university's computer labs to play that. (Mainly because we had to circumvent the login/accounting system they had in place.)

Please tell me a good way that I can socially play CF? There is no way. I cannot have my roommate/brother/sister/friend play from my site when I play or I will be smacked down, severely. Your rules you have in place state that there can be no interaction at all. Even in the same cabal, the simplest "infraction" meaning giving a piece of equipment to another same site individual is seen as, at the very least, a direct violation that warrants a ROTD transfer and warning.

Plenty of people play along with people they know, and never have a single issue with the rules. Plenty of others have an issue once, have a talk, and straighten things out. You're repeatedly and grossly exaggerating this issue to suit your agenda, and I'm done talking about it.

As Isildur and others have already discussed in more detail, there's a difference between playing introducing people to the game, and forming the types of cliques that people have abused.

Lastly, answer me this, just for fun's sake. How did the immortals (current) and mortals of CF get hooked on it? I'm willing to bank Valg that you learned this game through a real life friend who showed you the ropes, or at least alerted you to the game and its general rules/guidelines.

Bzzt. Found it on my own. I've always liked fantasy RPGs and did a little hunting.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>You see people playing as a social group as something that is
>inherently bad, evil, wrong, incorrect, aka cheating.

Because it necessarily disadvantages those players not part of an OOC social group. Even if it's something as small as ranking, those who know each other OOC are going to group together and rank each other up instead of grouping with some random guy none of them know. This makes it harder for the random guy to rank his character, since a big chunk of his potential groupmates are going to ignore him more often than not.

It also aids in PK situations in that you know exactly what to expect from each of your groupmates. You also know you're not going to be betrayed by any of them. You know they're not going to snatch all the good gear and leave you holding the bag. When cabal politics come into play it gets even murkier, since you could be put in a position to induct your OOC buddies, promote them, nominate them for leadership positions, etc.

>Please tell me a good way that I can
>socially play CF? There is no way. I cannot have my
>roommate/brother/sister/friend play from my site when I play
>or I will be smacked down, severely.

I try to do what I'm going to do, in game, without any coordination based on OOC events. When something happens in game that's particularly funny, tragic, or makes me look really good, I might post a log to someone I know OOC. That's social. When not actually playing, I'll sometimes have conversations with people about this or that class combo, or some new rule change. That's social.

Your last statement seems to directly contradict what Valguarnera said in another post. Namely, that the staff doesn't automatically punish people who play from the same site, even if they sometimes group together. Either he's lying and that is staff policy or you're mistaken in your assessment of the situation. Or, possibly, your site is a special case in that it's the origin of alot of abuse.

>Is, on its face, and examined, a needless and ultimately self
>(CF) destroying position. First, the "stay" rate of
>individuals who are shown CF by another friend in real life,
>and are able to group with that person, and get help from
>them, is by far astronomically higher than a random individual
>who happens on CF through mud finder/blind luck/CF internet
>friend. Therefore, you retain a much higher number of
>individuals at CF through this kind of "mentoring" system than
>you do anywhere else. That much can be agreed on.

The solo guys shouldn't be placed at an unfair disadvantage just because they don't have an OOC gang to run around with.

>Second, ganging, in itself, happens, no matter what, which is
>what you also fail to understand.

I think he understands that. His point seemed to be that allowing OOC permas would increase the rate of ganging.

>And you know what happens? At any time and day,
>you won't have group A dominating because group B and group C
>are there causing havoc too, all in the same PK (Hero), all
>rumbling each other, all creating an air of competition.

I wonder what your reaction would be if the most competant PK folks from the immortal realms all got together and decided to roll a gank squad together. Sort of a PK dream team, as it were. Nepenthe, the now departed Thror, Sebeok, Zulg, Arvam. One gets installed as a cabal leader, everyone else gets promoted as high as possible. Then they just start con-killing anyone they perceive to be part of an ooc "social circle". Let's see. Warrior Emperor, Lich Black, Thug Shadow, Healer Divine, Warrior Blade. All leaders.

>Solution. I am a firm believer that if you reject the current
>set of rules you offer a solution, even rough. Get rid of the
>hard and brutal rules that people cannot play from the same
>site. Allow a low level of peer assistance and grouping. Allow
>social players to exist on CF, because right now, if you are
>not willing ot dedicate 10 or more hours a week to CF, you can
>summarily eliminate yourself from the CF community. Especially
>if you are seeking a leader position, or any other position of
>somewhat enjoyment besides grunt.

Time committment and ooc permagrouping are two separate issues. I'm not sure why you're mixing them. I don't think it's possible to play a good leader character with less than ~7 hours a week. I think it's perfectly possible to play an enjoyable, successful character with maybe ~4 hours a week. Possibly even cabaled, though that would be harder. If you log in for an hour every other day, I doubt that's little enough playing time that you'd get booted.

>The guy who
>spends 20 hours a week on CF is going to be chosen as leader
>over the guy who spends 5 hours. That is a proven, and
>illustrated fact.

You'd rather have the 5 hr/wk guy get leader, then have everyone complain because he's not around to induct?

>And then you
>have Fortress whose leaders not only get a leader weapon, but
>at some point, some kind of leader power.

My only leader power was "induct". It seemed like I didn't get the weapon either until a couple of weeks into the position. You may be exagerrating how nice the leader weapon is, by the way.

You're forgetting, or maybe weren't around for (I have no idea) that a permagroup gang of characters engineered to play together, possibly played by players in the same lab, etc. was an order of magnitude worse than any gang you'll see assemble in the game currently.

If OOC-engineered groups of characters are allowed, then, I'm sorry, but nothing else is even really competitive. No reason to conserve the con of your character if you can level a new one right back up three times as fast as anyone else. No reason to build a character that is optimal for anything but PK if you're going to have the numbers to level and gear-forage with ease. No way a single character has a prayer of killing any of his six enemies when they log on and off together and hunt him together. (Unless you're... well, that doesn't really keep us on topic. Anyway.)

There was a time when people like Cador and Twist and I would sometimes make characters together because, frankly, the way things were at the time it just was the only way to even be close to playing the same game. A pair of, let's say, Twist and I still wouldn't be in a great position against a team of four guys playing from the same lab, but it would at least be a fight and not a pure steamroll.

Of course, the corallary of that is that after the four guys log off, now if you're a single player you have to worry about Twist and I paired up to come and roll you, and I don't like your chances. We always tried to be "better" about dominating that way than the purely mortal players, but if you're a single player that's a lot like saying having one leg forcibly amputated is better than having both chopped off. It still sucks. The whole thing was a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

One day we decided you shouldn't need a number of friends roughly equal to the number of people in the groups currently dominating the game to play. We changed the rules, and that's pretty much been that. And while there are times I would've liked to play with my friends in the old school way, I think the change is still for the better. One guy actually can play this game and be competitive now.

What does it matter if your friend chooses to stay and play because he can play with you, if he quits two weeks later when he finds out that the two of you are going to get wasted by six guys from Iowa every time you log on?

It makes it so much harder to blame Valg for all the bad things;)

... when I was like level 53, and people would blame me for all sorts of sweeping changes because I announced them, or because I posted on the forums to support them. At that point, I had no access to any of the machines involved in making the changes happen, and I was the junior member on pretty much any team I joined. But the IRC Waaah Squad needed a target, and the rest is urban legend.

Now that I'm an IMP, and I have some degree of autonomy/responsibility to initiate some changes, what sweeping changes have come down the pipe? Some extra inherents? Some new quests? Re-echoing communes? More stuff in shops? Request repops? Two area cool-ifications? A bunch of new helpfiles? If you want to blame me for any of those super-controversial moves, go right ahead.

Behind the scenes, I spent time trying to get some broader quests moving, pounded away on internal logs to try to get the MUD more stable (which I'm not very good at, but I did catch a couple crash bugs that were getting us again and again... check 'uptime'), and re-kickstarted the eventual replacement for the Ruined City (which is more than on track right now, thanks to some kick-ass assists from experienced staff).

Where are the massive bans? The logs of brutal authority crushing the innocents? The sweeping policy crackdowns? Has the Vast Immortal Conspiracy become so good at oppressing the masses that they can't document their oppression?

Of the things that have become trendy to bitch about, are any of them new? Ganging? Alternating threads of "Special powers are too strong!" and "We need more special powers!"? Overly conservative weenie-mon play styles? Looting? Alternating threads of "You have to play too much to be considered for leader!" and "I can't find Leader X to get inducted!"? Cabal front-running? Is there anything on that list that wasn't a debate in 1996?

Frankly, a lot of the most persistent complaints aren't even about Immortal decisions. Things like ganging, frontrunning, and weeniedom are complaints about other players. And I can't emphasize enough that the people who bitch the loudest about those issues are often the people doing it, behind a thin justification like "Well, everyone is doing it to me and I'm just getting them back!"

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I'm going to go out on a limb here. Take this for what it's worth. Actually, this probably isn't going to go over so well.

Why are you always the one taking the blame?

Valg, I am sure you do more for this game than a lot of other folks do. You are responsible for a great many changes and upgrades. Some I consider good. Some I don't particularly care for. Your devotion to the game is admirable. How do I know this?

I know this because you repeatedly inform the playerbase of these things. It seems that for every thread that blames you for something, rightly or wrongly deserved, you post a list all of the things that you've worked on. "Blame me for this? Well, I've done this!" It's almost automatic. Why don't any of the other Immortals do this?

Maybe you think all the criticism is unfair. Maybe you realize it's a "damned if you do-damned if you don't" scenario when it comes to responding to posts. Maybe you feel the need to defend yourself from any attack or criticism and you do this by listing what you've done. Maybe you felt that you put a lot of effort into something, and want people to know it.

I can't speak for the rest of the playerbase, but what I see is a touch of arrogance. I think that there's a part of you that wants the playerbase to know who it was that did the affinities, or the inherents, or what have you.

I think you LIKE the "blame magnet" label. I think it gives you an easy way of promoting your accomplishments. Since you were Proud Blade on Dioxide's forums, I've felt that your posts have had that same arrogant tone. That same "CF should be played my way" attitude. That same "Holier Than Thou" attitude.

When you make a mistake, there's no apology. Recently, you've deleted at least two posts from the graveyard that violated no rule, and made no reasonable explanation for it. One, someone mentioned Graatch by name, saying "good character" and you deleted it, even though Graatch identified himself in the good-bye thread. Second, you deleted a post you claimed to be laced with profanity, yet none was present.

I am not claiming you're infallible; everyone makes mistakes. Everyone wants to be recognized for their hard work and effort. Showing a little humility, a little decency, and a little grace when faced with a mistake will go a long way in making the "Blame Valg" campaign disappear (if that's really what you want). You do a good job on the game. Keep it up. But stop reminding me.

This isn't coming from one of the delinquents who is a frequent visitor to the ROTD. This is coming from a veteran player who genuinely cares for the game and is troubled by the rift between staff and playerbase.

Nivek
Out for the Weekend

Maybe you realize it's a "damned if you do-damned if you don't" scenario when it comes to responding to posts.

I think this is the core of what you're seeing. A lot of forum threads work like this:

1) Player posts idea. Let's say, Let's allow rampant permagrouping!
2) Idea doesn't sit well with staff. Several bat it around and figure out there is consensus that they don't like it.
3) No one responds to the post.
4) Eventually, I show up to say "Not something that is going to happen. Here's why." This makes me the bad guy.

I've asked a lot of the staff why they don't chime in on these sorts of questions more often, thus spreading the Inevitable Blame. (Some do post regularly, but a majority of the staff doesn't.) I usually get three flavors of responses:

1) "Lack of time."
2) "I'm not sure I have the experience/authority on that topic to speak for the staff."
3) "Are you kidding? And put up with 3 pages of personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and general bitching?"

(#3 is a similar topic to "Why are Immortals so secretive about the mortals they play?" See Nepenthe's post for a longer perspective on that.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

2) "I'm not sure I have the experience/authority on that topic to speak for the staff."

Yep, that's me.

So I tend to keep my mouth shut on these drawn out posts. Or what
happens as well, I see another IMM has pretty much covered what needed
to be said, so then in these cases I also keep my mouth shut. I realize
there are lots of people more smart than me. =)

-Grurk

Not to mention once things start to degenerate into a whine fest I don't even bother reading the thread anymore.

"Well we tried once and ran into a snag, so instead of trying to solve the snag we can never discuss it again."

people with friends want to play with their friends, and it's the best way to get new people into a game, especially one as obscure and intimidating as Carrion Fields.

A combination of the game being more balanced for all players,
and the fact that most of those players are getting older, has
an impact. That's in addition to changes in Internet, gaming,
and security-related network technologies.

The school year starting used to mean an influx of players who
could not normally play from home on dialup, for instance. Now
school signals a decline in players, as the younger players
still in school play video games on the school or dorm LANs or
are foiled by network administrators trying to secure their
bandwidth and summer brings the players in.

Spouses, houses, children and jobs are going to continue to
siphon off some of our older players and Counterstrike and
its ilk will continue to nip at our heels. Maybe some day
we'll turn a blind eye to the cheating that the cheaters
don't consider cheating, but I can't see that point from here.

If you look at experienced players and the Rage Deletion Craze, it's very easy to see that our playerbase doesn't take losing well. It's a competitive game by design, and it tends to attract the overly Type-A crowd.

One of the consequences of a well-balanced game is that every dog has its day, and sometimes you're wearing Milk-Bone underwear. Player skill still trumps other variables, but every kick-ass character will have a tough matchup with someone.

One stat that I don't have is PK ratios of top-end killers from very early in the game, vs. now. My gut feeling is that it's much harder to win 90% of your fights (or land 100 kills) now. You can't just roll up one of the Power Combos and say "Oooh. Elf paladin. Time to take his lunch money.", because the elf paladin might actually whoop you.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com