New races/class/cabal sounds good.

New areas...that needs to stop. Mud is too damn big for the playerbase. I think that it would be better to invest the time into a new class, examining some balance issues..etc.

When the staff is spitting out area after area after area, every 2-3 weeks or whatever...its BLEH. I dont really bother going to look at it. Now if it happened once every 2-3 months, some bad ass area comes out, then yeah i would go check it out. Right now, i hardly bother with all the new zillion areas. Its overdone.

Content can have many forms. Why dont you take a poll...here is an example of one.

What would you like to see in CF in 2004?

1. New race.
2. New class.
3. Skills Balancing.
4. New Cabals.
5. More Areas.
6. Class changes (more spells/specs/skills for existing classes)
7. Paladins are overpowered!! Kill them!!

The problem is changing things by making them more time consuming and more annoying. People can do the same thing they did before, but it takes a lot more time. Dont change things for the sake of changing them. Change isn't always good if its in the wrong direction.

I would suggest you make a poll before you implement some major change or after you implemented it to see the reaction. See what the players think and what they would like to have. If you run this game for yourselves, then go ahead and do exactly what you want, when you want it. If you run it for the people who play every day and night, then you should listen to them more often and stop dismissing them so readily.

Stop adamantly defending your every position even though the player base might be displeased with whatever changed. Make a poll about it, and quit puting up useless polls. Make a poll with something relevant like 1. Practicing system 2. Money System 3. Chargeset (the skill)
The polls you have had for the past year have been adressing NO meaningful issues, period, just the kind of crap you see on AOL polls for 12 year olds.

Take the ranger change for example. Fashion spear?!?! Please, who wasted the time to even code that? Survivalist..ok, sure, but i'd rather have 20 gold. Chargeset working when youre ensnared and cant even talk?! How, why? Shrug...Why not make some polls about things like that?

If player happiness goes down, it was a bad decision. Its that simple.

Having not much else time to read the slew of responses, I'm go out on a limb and label my unique.


While it is fun to explore new areas, it sort of challens people into playing exploration conducive characters (yes, I know all classes could be made into badass explorers, but some alot easier than others etc, and certain grouping/cabal restrictions yadda yadda yadda factor in how bad I suck at this game and I'm left with a few classes)

Thats not really my point.

My point is this; I would Much rather have the same areas/classes/skills/etc from 1994, if all the time spent coding was put into immeteraction/quests/etc. I haven't been involved in a sexy quest since the god damned ice-drake thing 2 years ago? And that was sorta weak. I think alot of people would rather have you running quests than puting alot of hours into adding things.

Now, this is not to say I don't enjoy all the new stuff, it just seems like a replacement of sorts.

~Abthalok

My main pet peeve is that everything is so much more time consuming these days.

Practice: Maybe I'm alone with this but I cannot play a "tank" these days mainly because practicing have been made so hard. And thus with me being unpracticed I rank slower and pk worse. With a giant with axes this it is not as big of an impact. Sure this can be me being unfair and maybe it is just something in my mind.

Money: I know you like the new system, but personally I think it makes it much harder for new players and lazy ones(like me). It costs to get detect invis preps, it costs to get return potions. Those things are also very hard to barter for so you are left with the one sport every player seems to do right now. Run around after crashes selling things. And if you miss that run, sorry no money for you.

I find it very unlogical that every merchant in thera are not carrying enough money to buy a single pie.

Outlanders: I have not played anyone, but I still feel that I can comment some. Please feel free to ignore it though. What you have for a cabal is this:

Forced percent in the wilderness:
Logical, but makes you very wary where you rank and it would not be adviced to rank in cities, even if that would be good roleplay in my opinion. Because ranking is what you do most atleast in younger years usually.

Forced disliking of races/classes:
Sure, have nothing against it but there are alot of the player base they done like.

Money: Ok, even if gathering money is annoying. Gathering things to barter for and food of the ground is even more annoying.

If Outlander is about fixing the causes why would they not care about a steel sword but care about money?

If I barter a steel sword for something, how is that different from giving a copper piece for something?

And on top of this you fight Tribunal(far most defensive cabal) and Empire(far most coolest cabal )

Sure, maybe I fear change and maybe it is only in my imagination that cf was easier before.

The wilderness percentage is probably not as bad as it sounds. I ranked in civilized areas quite a bit and still got in. I took main roads and such quite a lot. The only thing I really did was practice in wilderness areas and regen in wilderness areas.

The forced disliking point.. well, I think it's a good thing. I don't really play to make friends with everyone. More enemies = more PK. More PK = why I play. Also RP with enemies always seems to be more intresting.

Gathering things to barter vs. Gathering money:
In my experience, it seems like each take the same amount of time. Though, bartering is more limited if you're a outlander. I looked for other places to get potions I needed. I was usually able to keep a good supply of the essentials via bartering. I thought it would be more of a problem, but once you play around with it some, you get used to it. One annoyance is not being able to barter the same item if the shopkeeper already has one. So you have to find diffrent things that hold value. Also, you don't HAVE to gather anything you can still play without dozens of potions and still have fun. Though, it does help if you take the time to gather things.

And the money.. Well, I'm not too sure. Though, thinking about it I thought about some contadictions (somewhat).

First: Currency breeds corruption and greed (I would think you would look at it this way if you're an outlander). Though, The currency in CF is Gold, silver, and copper. Precious metals. They come from the earth naturally. Unless CF's gold, silver etc is diffrent then the real worlds. It is quite common for Outlanders to barter things such as gemstones. Would this not be kind of the same thing as using gold and silver?

Second: The things you barter if you are in outlander.. I believe their value is based off how much gold they are worth. I guess this is sort of a game mechanic thing. Though, it does seem kind of off for the whole outlander philosophy.

An idea I had while playing (Though, I admit it probably wouldn't work. Just thought I'd throw it out there) is having storage areas for outlanders. Everyone else has a bank, so I would think it would be cool if Outlanders could stash some things for future bartering (instead of lugging around dozens of things).

Anyway, I don't really understand what all the hoopla is about. I also don't really get why a lot of the playerbase (supposedly) hates this cabal. Seemed fun to me.

I thought they were fun too, my only concern is that the philosophy and the powers don;t seem to jive. I expressed this in Therisa's deletion post and can only hope that I did so in a way that was well recieved by the IMM staff. If anyone wanted me to express those opinions again or elaborate on them I'd be happy to, but it seemed that none of the IMM staff was remotely interested in hearing the opinions of those who had just played Outlanders for any length of time (even though most of us came to the same conclusions, without ever discussing it amongst each other).

I agree that people resist change. It is part of the human condition. But another thing which is pretty common is the "my **** doesn't stink" attitude expressed or implied by many of the IMM staff. Yes I know you work hard and are not paid, and I love you all for it. But that doesn't mean that every good idea that does get implemented is flawless.

And yes, I know you watch and make revisions as you see then needed, I just feel like oftentimes this shouldn;t be an entirely behind-the-scenes act. Sometimes when a player expresses an opinion, all they need is an IMM to say "Thanks for the feedback, we are keeping an eye on it and will change it if we think it is needed." Then you can disregard what they said and they won't be any the wiser, and will feel better about life.

Some people have a hard time practicing some do not. If you are fighting something that is the same over and over and is not a challenge, you should not learn from it. You shouldn't learn how to fight a dragon by killing mist wraiths.

If you are lazy, that is your problem. Gathering money or objects to barter with goes very easily for those who spent some time figuring it out.

Ranking is so not an issue for wilderness time. Over the course of your life, you may spend 100 hours (this number is high, but read on for the point) actually ranking, the rest of your time is doing other things. If your character lasts 500 hours, the wilderness percentage is not a factor. Not to mention that out of your ranking hours, you won't even spend half that time in a city. If you are an Outlander, you shouldn't be guild sitting to fit your other time anyway.

Forced hatred is a cabal dynamic regardless of the reason.

Your last sentence makes the most sense. But, look at it this way. If things weren't made more difficult, how would you grow? The reason why we go to first grade after kindergarten is because repeating kindergarten would get boring.

>We constantly fiddle with things here at Carrion Fields.
>Whether you realize it or not, it's why you're here at all.
>For years, lots of commercial games used a model of putting
>out their best product on Day One, watching it sell many
>copies, get good reviews, then gradually fade into obscurity
>as people got bored of the same-old-same-old. More recently,
>you see a lot of games which operate under the model we do:
>releasing expansions, free downloads, and creating tools to
>allow other people to generate even more.
>

The model you're using as an example is NOT the same model you use.

We only need new content, not new features.



>We use change constantly because we've been up for over ten
>years. Everyone would have departed in boredom a long time
>ago if we were still using the same code and areas we used in
>1994.

Hi. We have no way of knowing if everyone would have departed, Nostradamus. Code and Areas are Features and Content. This is going to be a recurring theme in this flame. Because I genuinely think you don't get it.

>
>Unfortunately from a designer perspective, we seem to have a
>lot of Change-Fearers. They often post things like the
>following:
>
<snip: people whine about changes>
>Now, despite #664, some ideas are good. Any design staff that
>shoots down everything is a bad design staff. Once an idea is
>deemed good, it often (**) survives implementation. It gets
>announced, help files are added, coders sometimes put in some
>sort of tracking/evaluating device, and....
>

I'll give you this Valg, most people are a little too whiney for their own good - I can't prove it's your fault though. You just gotta ignore the parrots though.

>Here come the Change Fearers!
>
>My favorite example of change-fearing is Scion.

>The result? Some players play Scions over and over for one
>reason or another. Others never touch it. In short, it's much like every other cabal.
>

Maybe players like characters to have cabal powers. Maybe since there are X number of cabals with powers, people are going to play any cabal no matter how bad you make it. ( I like scion though, for the record )

Maybe it's HUMAN NATURE to want your character to be competitive, and to seek advantages in the form of EXTRA POWERS.


>There's lots of examples of this. Change-Fearers complained
>endlessly about our new thieves. Nowadays, it's hard to find
>anyone that would want to go back to the old one-trick ponies.
> Legacies brought non-Battle warriors into the hero ranks
>again, where they do fine and don't really overwhelm anything.
> Etc.
>

I'm going to define Change-Fearer as 'anyone who criticizes a change'.

To play Devil's Advocate, I'd like to point out that while I don't necessarily disagree, your logic is flawed and you make a lot of assumptions.

Many people might say thieves and most classes are still one trick ponies. I don't think you've looked or offered the chance to play old thieves. Maybe you should take a vote, or open a guild and see what players play? It's easy to say 'Many people'.

I agree that non-Battle warriors are more powerful - but you cannot know that Legacies are responsible or solely responsible. Maybe it's an increased scarcity in mage protections? Maybe melee damage plays a greater role in PK as defensive skills are harder to practice?
( I like Legacies. )


>So, what to do about it?
>
>1) If something new comes in, wait a bit before posting about
>it, aside from bugs and whatnot. Let things settle in. Some
>changes get more powerful with time (as people learn to use
>them), and others get less pwerful with time (as people learn
>to counteract them).
>2) Please do not be the guy who begins the post with "I've
>never played with or against this new feature, but..." Step
>back, and if you really have a point, someone who has evidence
>will figure it out and bring it forward. Let them have the
>stage. A badly articulated argument for a point can actually
>damage future arguments for the same point.
>3) Avoid ranting like a fourth-grader. If you have a point,
>you will be able to make it without name-calling, excessive
>punctuation, or apocalyptic proclamations of how the change
>will single-handedly destroy CF. You'll also discover that
>people will actually read your post all the way through if
>it's not obviously crippled by hysterics. If you know you
>tend to post rant-y stuff, give it a day and try it then.
>4) Take responsibility and post to say "This new feature is
>fine." or "Here is why I think this new feature should
>change." if you've had more experience with it than most
>players do. The Battlefield is a good forum for this, and
>people use it well in this respect, but Gameplay, AskanImm, or
>email to the appropriate people can also work.
>

Seriously, the people who should read this have already gotten bored and are just skimming. They'll never really read that. Which is sad, because it does point out a lot of really annoying traits in forum posting.


Yes Valguarnera, somebody will complain about everything. So what purpose does the 'I don't like criticism, so please don't criticize my mud' post do? You'll get the parrots to flame anyone who criticizes me, which is kind of clever.

You know what's still annoying about the 'features' and 'changes' you make? Consistently making it more of a chore to PLAY cf. Assuming you know the playerbase's mind without asking us. Making this mud more and more complex with behind the scenes factors that most will not be able to decipher or see.

Wasting your time coding new features when maybe we just want you to play WITH us?

>valguarnera@carrionfields.com
japhygb@umich.edu

>
>>We constantly fiddle with things here at Carrion Fields.
>>Whether you realize it or not, it's why you're here at all.
>>For years, lots of commercial games used a model of putting
>>out their best product on Day One, watching it sell many
>>copies, get good reviews, then gradually fade into obscurity
>>as people got bored of the same-old-same-old. More
>recently,
>>you see a lot of games which operate under the model we do:
>>releasing expansions, free downloads, and creating tools to
>>allow other people to generate even more.
>>
>
>The model you're using as an example is NOT the same model you
>use.
>
>We only need new content, not new features.

I could be smarmy and say Guess I'll stop working on those new classes/races/cabals. No new features...got it. I'll just keep going on for bug fixes & new areas.



>>We use change constantly because we've been up for over ten
>>years. Everyone would have departed in boredom a long time
>>ago if we were still using the same code and areas we used
>in
>>1994.
>
>Hi. We have no way of knowing if everyone would have
>departed, Nostradamus. Code and Areas are Features and
>Content. This is going to be a recurring theme in this flame.
> Because I genuinely think you don't get it.

And all you want is content? All you want is new areas? I find that amazingly hard to believe, but it's your opinion. And if that is all you want...then you don't get it. CF is an ever-evolving game of features and content. It always will be. This is not a stagnant environment.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

I like how you guys added the 'no flaming' forum rule.

>>
>>>We constantly fiddle with things here at Carrion Fields.
>>>Whether you realize it or not, it's why you're here at all.
>
>>>For years, lots of commercial games used a model of putting
>>>out their best product on Day One, watching it sell many
>>>copies, get good reviews, then gradually fade into
>obscurity
>>>as people got bored of the same-old-same-old. More
>>recently,
>>>you see a lot of games which operate under the model we do:
>>>releasing expansions, free downloads, and creating tools to
>>>allow other people to generate even more.
>>>
>>
>>The model you're using as an example is NOT the same model
>you
>>use.
>>
>>We only need new content, not new features.
>
>I could be smarmy and say Guess I'll stop working on those
>new classes/races/cabals. No new features...got it. I'll
>just keep going on for bug fixes & new areas.
>
>

classes/races/cabals are content. That's what I'm asking for.
areas are content. Ditto.

It's part of the bigger platform I'm trying to push here.

(Why do you word things like that? You're allowed to flame me, but I'm not allowed to flame you? C'mon, buddy. I can take it.)


>>Hi. We have no way of knowing if everyone would have
>>departed, Nostradamus. Code and Areas are Features and
>>Content. This is going to be a recurring theme in this
>flame.
>> Because I genuinely think you don't get it.

>And all you want is content? All you want is new areas? I
>find that amazingly hard to believe, but it's your opinion.
>And if that is all you want...then you don't get it. CF is an
>ever-evolving game of features and content. It always will
>be. This is not a stagnant environment.

Zulgh look, take this statement, this is the base for this idea.

Immortals have often pointed out that they put a lot of work into CF.

I think the implication is that you do not enjoy 'working' on CF, right? I seriously LIKE the immortals. I'm trying to point out that maybe you don't HAVE to work at CF. I'm trying to make your life easier? Why .. would you argue against me?

It's not a flame..

>CF is an
>ever-evolving game of features and content. It always will
>be. This is not a stagnant environment.

That's why I like muds. But why is it all or nothing? Why wouldn't quests and immteraction keep the mud fresh? Why wouldn't player RP keep the mud fresh?

Look.. all you have to do to prove me wrong is give me a good answer to any of these questions. They aren't rhetorical. I'm trying to drive an intelligent discussion by pointing out what I don't understand.

>>>We only need new content, not new features.

>>I could be smarmy and say Guess I'll stop working on those
>>new classes/races/cabals. No new features...got it. I'll
>>just keep going on for bug fixes & new areas.

>classes/races/cabals are content. That's what I'm asking for.
>areas are content. Ditto.

Right below you say Code and Areas are Features and Content. Right above you say We only need new content. Get your own definitions straight before you jump on mine.

>>>Code and Areas are Features and
>>>Content. This is going to be a recurring theme in this flame.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

>>>>We only need new content, not new features.
>
>>>I could be smarmy and say Guess I'll stop working on
>those
>>>new classes/races/cabals. No new features...got it. I'll
>>>just keep going on for bug fixes & new areas.
>
>>classes/races/cabals are content. That's what I'm asking
>for.
>>areas are content. Ditto.
>
>Right below you say Code and Areas are Features and
>Content. Right above you say We only need new
>content. Get your own definitions straight before you
>jump on mine.
>
>>>>Code and Areas are Features and
>>>>Content. This is going to be a recurring theme in this
>flame.
>

I'm jumping on yours I guess because I suspect that this is a glitch where we're not understanding each other.

I now suspect this is because I wrote that second part very poorly!

I meant to say, "Code is Features" and "Areas are Content". I guess everything is technically code though, so can you read between the lines for a second?

Alas, you've not actually attacked the idea yet, only the words.


>

>To summarize what I'm proposing:

You should have started off with this

>I think that content should be a much higher priority, because
>it would make the game more enjoyable to immortals and
>mortals.

Content has a high priority...it also takes a lot longer to come up with something from scratch. While we are working on content, we are also fixing up things that we think are broken.

>I think that changes which make the game more time consuming
>are not the best solution to a problem.

What I see, is you see some of the changes that are made are on things you don't think are broken. The people who complain that practicing stuff takes a lot longer now are the obsessive practicers. The people who never practiced things are finding their skills/spells going up at a much improved rate. It's more of a balance than before which is what we were going for. That's just one example of something I believe you would say is "more time consuming", but to the playerbase at large it is actually less.

There are changes which benefit 90% of the population, and could be seen to hinder the other 10%. I'm still going to push for those kinds of changes no matter how loud the 10% is.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Here is a summary I guess:

When people criticize your actions, you offer up rationales that are weak. They are weak because you take for evident truths things that nobody else can see, or which are arguably true at best.

I would like to see rationales that can be proven or disproven, by evidence or logic!
<hr>
>>To summarize what I'm proposing:
>
>You should have started off with this
>
>>I think that content should be a much higher priority,
>because
>>it would make the game more enjoyable to immortals and
>>mortals.
>
>Content has a high priority...it also takes a lot longer to
>come up with something from scratch. While we are working on
>content, we are also fixing up things that we think are
>broken.
>

This is the disconnect, I think. You say it has a high priority - but look, you can just say that and I can't prove or disprove it either way. I've been seeing posts for years that ask for this consistently.

I'm talking about the sort of roleplaying I always get with empowered chars and none others. Like, two sentences from a mob or something. A conversation where the future of my char is not at stake. If it's work, then it's not more enjoyable to immortals and mortals.

Stuff that takes planning.. Elaborate quests.. that's more work then you should need to put in. I'm just saying, spend half your time picking people at random and bringing some part of their world to life. Is that not fun for you guys?

I've been trying to say this for months.

>>I think that changes which make the game more time consuming
>>are not the best solution to a problem.
>
>What I see, is you see some of the changes that are made are
>on things you don't think are broken. The people who complain
>that practicing stuff takes a lot longer now are the obsessive
>practicers. The people who never practiced things are finding
>their skills/spells going up at a much improved rate. It's
>more of a balance than before which is what we were going for.
> That's just one example of something I believe you would say
>is "more time consuming", but to the playerbase at large it is
>actually less.
>
>There are changes which benefit 90% of the population, and
>could be seen to hinder the other 10%. I'm still going to
>push for those kinds of changes no matter how loud the 10%
>is.

OK, I guess I have to be in the 10%. But this is just another invocation of the immortal curtain.

I might have a skewed perspective, but how are YOU judging popular opinion?

How can you say that this benefits 90% of the population? It takes everyone hours and hours longer to rank. (Is this statement debatable?!) Are you saying 90% of the population enjoys ranking?!



This is silly. From my perspective, either you're dodging my questions and trying to twist my words to 'win', or my writing is not good enough to convey what I'm trying to say.

Either choice is very frustrating.



<hr>
My gut says that I should edit this part below out, but my head says maybe this disclaimer will do:

The text below is long and unedited, and probably not very helpful.
<hr>

Let's use the changes to practicing as an example.

I'm trying to understand the principles that are guiding your actions.

spam practicing is bad. (ok.. why?)
so we'll try to make it increasingly difficult to practice defenses in the traditional way and try to encourage players to let skills go up as they rank.

I posted once before on positive and negative reinforcement. Which are you doing here? What has basic psychology proven more effective?

I'm going to pull a page out of your playbook here and say that I can think of several different ways of handling this perceived problem.

But I also don't think that these microcosms are in any way useful. I don't think it's possible to know how many ways a fairly minor change like that could have changed the game, to be fair. And there are too many variables to know.

Here is my constructive criticism:

Put up a poll that says "Would you like the old practicing system back?"

When you perceive a problem, put up a poll that says "Do you think x is a problem?"

When you revamp a class, let people chose between the old and new. Have some imms play the new class and kick everyone's butt.


This is all just rehashing negative and positive re-enforcement, and making public the principles and visions for your mud.

>This is the disconnect, I think. You say it has a high
>priority - but look, you can just say that and I can't prove
>or disprove it either way. I've been seeing posts for years
>that ask for this consistently.

And how do you propose I prove it? I'm one of the few coders. In the time I'm working on CF I code new features, tweak existing features and bug fix. I honestly can't give you much more than that.

You know how you can prove it? Join the Immortal staff and see for yourself. I can give you my side of the story, but I'm not going to have over the inner-workings of immortaldom to you without you proving you are worth having that.


>Stuff that takes planning.. Elaborate quests.. that's more
>work then you should need to put in. I'm just saying, spend
>half your time picking people at random and bringing some part
>of their world to life. Is that not fun for you guys?

Honestly, it's not fun for me, so I don't do it. I have way more other stuff that I'd rather do. I, of course, am just one Immortal, your mileage will vary.

>OK, I guess I have to be in the 10%. But this is just another
>invocation of the immortal curtain.

So become an immortal and have the curtain removed. I'm not stoping you from that.

>I might have a skewed perspective, but how are YOU judging
>popular opinion?

By discussions with other immortals who observe the game, and others who play the game, and reading posts on this and other forums. Some I weigh much heavier than others. Some I take with a very large handful of salt (and a margarita).

>How can you say that this benefits 90% of the population?

I assume by "this" you are referring to the changes in practicing. I can say that because I have the data in the pfiles to back it up. The average % of skills on players is higher than it has been in the past and the average # of hours is lower. Can I "prove" this to you. No, because I'm not handing over all the pfiles to you. You'll just have to take my word for it, or lump it in with your immortal curtain.

>It takes everyone hours and hours longer to rank.

No, it doesn't. People are still heroing quite quickly.

> Is this statement debatable?!)

See my above statement about proof.

>Are you saying 90% of the population enjoys ranking?!

This isn't even logically sound from the above argument.


>Let's use the changes to practicing as an example.
>
>I'm trying to understand the principles that are guiding your
>actions.
>
>spam practicing is bad. (ok.. why?)
>so we'll try to make it increasingly difficult to practice
>defenses in the traditional way and try to encourage players
>to let skills go up as they rank.

The principle behind it is to better balance out the obsessive-compulsive spam practicer (which there will always be), and the utter newbie who goes through life in the simple path, fighting their way through the levels. When they are done levelling, their skill set (of those they used while rankign) will be much higher than they were in the past. The obsessive-compulsive spammer will still have their set of 100%. The 90% get a benefit. The 10% get to find a new way to practice.

>I posted once before on positive and negative reinforcement.
>Which are you doing here? What has basic psychology proven
>more effective?

I only took one psychology class in college, and don't use it in any of my thinking. Your guess is as good as mine.

>Here is my constructive criticism:
>
>Put up a poll that says "Would you like the old practicing
>system back?"

Why put up a poll we don't plan on acting on? Why wouldn't the dataset get skewed by one person who really, really, really wants the old system back and gets dynamic IP addresses so they can keep voting? In place of a poll, what would likely happen is something on the Monthly contest forum like I did for inherents. The problem with practicing is, all players would just as soon ask for 100% in everything than come up with a decent way to learn skills.

>When you perceive a problem, put up a poll that says "Do you
>think x is a problem?"

If we perceive a problem, we usually keep it to ourselves and go try and work out a fix with the people on the imm staff. If you want to help solve these problems, become an imm.

>When you revamp a class, let people chose between the old and
>new. Have some imms play the new class and kick everyone's
>butt.

When we revamp a class it's because we don't like the old one, it has lost its way, its lost its flavor, and we want to make it bigger, better, faster, more. Why would we leave around the old dumpy one, when we've just replaced it with the new, hot one? That pretty much goes against the idea of a revamp.

>This is all just rehashing negative and positive
>re-enforcement, and making public the principles and visions
>for your mud.

You seem to think the onus is entirely upon us, and I don't agree with that. You also have the tools available to gain the understanding, and make the changes you seem to want, but haven't taken the steps to do so. This is my last response to this, someone else can pick up where I left off. As I see it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

.

I'll be brief.

1) You're writing your personal opinions on what we should be working on. That's fine. What is incorrect is how you generalize your specific wants to be universal. Example: "We only need new content, not new features." (You later define content to be areas, and features to be code.) Scroll up and down this board and read the other threads. Plenty of them are started by players, and are entirely about adding new code. You do this a great deal, here and elsewhere.

2) I don't see us ever making major decisions by public voting. An oft-unspoken reality you are overlooking is that the average immortal staff does know the game a lot better than the average player. It's not even debatable. That average immortal was selected for their position because they displayed some expertise. They have since spent a four-digit number of hours helping administrate the game. They have vastly expanded access to information, both in terms of data about the game, and as far as future plans. Most importantly, they have proven to the staff that they can be trusted to make sound decisions for the betterment of the game as a whole. Immortals who establish a track record of bad decisions end up ex-immortals.

Players do not accept any of those responsibilities. They aren't accountable for fixing things if one of their ideas doesn't pan out. They won't have to do much of the legwork to make the idea happen. They can step away at any time, for any length of time, and there aren't any consequences, and they aren't letting anyone else down. Players who establish a track record of bad decisions end up... often still playing if they want.

And yet, there are a ton of examples of things suggested here on our forums that do make it into the game. We interpret player feedback. That's crucial to the success of any game, but so is knowing when not to follow the popular trend.

If you are aware of a MUD that has prospered making their major decisions by a public vote of the players, please cite your source. I think I've seen one that tried, and I logged on to check on it, and saw no one else on. (To be fair, it was fairly new.)

If you want the kind of decision-making authority you're posting about, feel free to submit an application to be on the staff. Another thing you're underemphasizing is that every immortal (excepting the founders, I guess) was once a player, and the vast majority of us currently play mortals when time permits. We only hire from within our playerbase strictly because we do trust our veteran players with that sort of responsibility.

Other than that, I've read your post, and it's a lot of things you've posted before. I'm aware of your argument. I just disagree with it.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Quests should be extremely rare and earned for a really strong character life. Not given out by random. Aside from the possible coding and building needed, there is the need for multiple players to show up. Not just the mortal players, but immortal players as well. There is also the problem of having too much immteraction. Mortals and immortals lose something when an imm is too frequently available. For immteraction to be special, it has to occur at special times.

For some, learning is a chore, for others, they jump on the opportunity to grow. I, for one, am much more impressed with today's thinking characters to the characters of old. And this is because of content and features.

Whille I tend to dislike change as much as the next guy, I often find that within a year or two, at times three, I actually like it. During that time I will however invoke my right to complain!

Assassins lost Hell-fire, just before I made it to level 35. Was nerfed into a felar rager cookie cutter (Turned out to be quite true actually).

Valg, I simply don't get how you can resist counter-spam, with all the answeres to defend a change, you write. If anyone complained so much about the stuff I implement at work I would fire them.

Doing a good job, and though I still think Scions is a strange cabal with no aim, I have enjoyed being in it several times (or just one?)

Now if you could do something about empowerment .. a long time issue of mine.

Søren

>Here come the Change Fearers!
>
>My favorite example of change-fearing is Scion. We introduced
>the current version of the backstory/powers roughly two years
>ago. The forums were littered with change-fear. People
>didn't know what it was. People thought the powers were too
>weak. Despoil was no good because it required the
>sacrifice of a valuable object. The backstory was vague and
>confusing if you only read the helpfile. Nightwalkers were
>'nerfed' because they occasionally decided that they didn't
>like fighting for you and left. They didn't have anything to
>"do". Etc.
>
>We didn't do much. A few tweaks, some new code to support
>things we forgot or learned as we observed, etc. Part of this
>was because I'm convinced it is a quality product, though I
>also recognized that it would take time for people to get used
>to it.

Scion has only improved with the introduction of the new cabal powers. Before the druktars and what not it was nothing like it is now, it was a lifeless husk by comparison, and this is coming from someone who was in the cabal.
And Scion powers are hardly uber by comparison to masters, if you want to pour scorn on "change-fearers" please, for the love of god do so in a scenario which is relevant.

>The result? Some players play Scions over and over for one
>reason or another. Others never touch it. People argue both
>sides of whether the powers are any good or not. Some Scions
>have been among the most recognized PCs of their era. Other
>Scions have been forced out in shame, or quietly faded into
>autodeletion. In short, it's much like every other cabal.


> If you're too new to remember the most recent Scion revamp,
>my instincts are that you can safely insert the word
>"Outlander" above and wait a bit.)

It's the only revamp that's counted. Outlanders look like they too have some style right now, inconsistent and bizarre ideas behind it but that's a different story.

>There's lots of examples of this. Change-Fearers complained
>endlessly about our new thieves. Nowadays, it's hard to find
>anyone that would want to go back to the old one-trick ponies.

You are wrong.

> Legacies brought non-Battle warriors into the hero ranks
>again, where they do fine and don't really overwhelm anything.
> Etc.

? Was there a single voice who didn't like legacies?

If i trust you to do a good job, i'm ok with what you do.
If the renownked pk-spazz is tweaking pk, i'm not trusting you.

2) Please do not be the guy who begins the post with "I've never played with or against this new feature, but..." Step back, and if you really have a point, someone who has evidence will figure it out and bring it forward. Let them have the stage. A badly articulated argument for a point can actually damage future arguments for the same point.

I certainly hope I dont fall into this category. From memory, I've only ever complained about either thieves or assassins, both of which I have played exclusively for the last 4 years or so.

4) Take responsibility and post to say "This new feature is fine." or "Here is why I think this new feature should change." if you've had more experience with it than most players do. The Battlefield is a good forum for this, and people use it well in this respect, but Gameplay, AskanImm, or email to the appropriate people can also work.

Well, I guess my beef is that assassins have not recieved any positive changes. Let us take the vanish change, a rather huge change. Why was it changed? Was it because:

(a) Vanish/assassinate tactic?
- A timer could have been put on an assassinate attempt, making vanish less reliable. Hence the players who rely on said tactic (Padgett, etc) would be negatively effected. My primary beef with the change was that an excellent use of vanish was to escape entwine.

(b) Vanish succeeded 100% of the time when perfected?
- Word of Recall succeededs 100% of the time when perfected *shrug*

Though, truth be told, I wouldn't have been as annoyed with the change if assassins had recieved something positive. Sort of a give-and-take type of deal. Who knows, maybe its just more fun coding up more and more (and more!) #### for warriors, or maybe there is no immortal who is interested in coding up new assassin stuff.

---

Now, onto thieves. When the neo thieves came out, I will admit that I wrongly did complain about their lack of power etc...However, when knock-out trap was changed from a 12 to a 5 hour duration...well I sent you an email concerning many things, so I won't bother repeating myself here too much. As for your question as who would take old-school thieves over neo thieves...it would depend on the scenario. But I do miss third attack, old-school blackjack & bind, and ofcourse doublebackstab. That was raw killing potential, but I suppose I like neo-thieves because of the greater variety.

- V

Rom.

>Well, I guess my beef is that assassins have not recieved any
>positive changes. Let us take the vanish change, a rather huge
>change. Why was it changed? Was it because:

I believe I've talked about this before, but perhaps you missed it:

Back in the day when I started playing the game, vanish failed in the situation(s) it can fail now. It did so much more than it does currently.

Around the time assassins were revamped, Cador and I talked about increasing its success rate in that situation, and he did.

We later discovered that by "increased success rate" he had actually meant "zero chance of failure." This was then retrofited to have the kind of success rate I/we had in mind when it was improved in the first place. So, whether you are aware of it or not, what you are seeing is not a huge nerf, but a small nerf to an earlier HUGE improvement. Assassins still came out way ahead on that.

> My
>primary beef with the change was that an excellent use of
>vanish was to escape entwine.

That hasn't changed. Instead of having a 0% chance to escape entwine, vanish does allow an assassin to have an x% chance, where x should generally be greater than 50% and less than 100%. It's up to you to decide whether you like your chances of succeeding at a vanish or if you think you have a better chance trying to escape or stay with a different tactic. You roll the dice and you take your chances. This is generally makes for a more interesting game than one in which the superiority of the vanish vs. entwine tactic is absolutely assured.

> b) Vanish succeeded 100% of the time when perfected?
> - Word of Recall succeededs 100% of the time when perfected
>*shrug*

There are also more ways to make word of recall succeed 0% when perfected than there are to do the same to vanish.

>Though, truth be told, I wouldn't have been as annoyed with
>the change if assassins had recieved something positive. Sort
>of a give-and-take type of deal. Who knows, maybe its just
>more fun coding up more and more (and more!) #### for
>warriors, or maybe there is no immortal who is interested in
>coding up new assassin stuff.

I'm sure assassins will get more attention someday. Currently, they're certainly not a weak class.

I believe I've talked about this before, but perhaps you missed it:

Back in the day when I started playing the game, vanish failed in the situation(s) it can fail now. It did so much more than it does currently.

Around the time assassins were revamped, Cador and I talked about increasing its success rate in that situation, and he did.

We later discovered that by "increased success rate" he had actually meant "zero chance of failure." This was then retrofited to have the kind of success rate I/we had in mind when it was improved in the first place. So, whether you are aware of it or not, what you are seeing is not a huge nerf, but a small nerf to an earlier HUGE improvement. Assassins still came out way ahead on that.


I did miss that it seems. Vanish worked 100% for quite a while, I guess I was just spoiled. Cheers for clearing that up.

Rom.

Very good post. I know I can at times be one of these change fearers but I try not to be. Though the two things you mentioned Scion and Thieves both changed drastically from the time they got implemented to now, where people are happier with them. As for talking about Scion after it's complete revamp, I think I like most people had no idea it got a revamp to explain things better and give it a purpose so the complaints kept coming. As for thieves I tried a poisoner a few months after it came out and it was just broken. I complained on the thief board and largely got ignored, now I see alot of the things I complained about back then finally got fixed(even though at the time I was told by design).
I can tell you wrote this in some part to head off the mounting complaints about Outlander. I'm sure there is a lot of time and thought put into creating Outlander and things we as players don't realize yet are factors. I also think though that you can't truly see how something is going to work until it's put into practice. For example while you guys might have decided that manacles is really no big deal for outlander spell casters, in practice it's a huge draw back for them. While I'm going to try to stop making any rush to judgements on the cabal now(Already made a few), I definately think it's like Scion when it first came in. In time it's going to need polish on it's RP/Story and a definate look at how well the powers fit the new cabal. I'm hoping this comes soon as opposed to later.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

First of all, you're dead-on about change fear. Hell, it's a human condition with everything, I think.

You touched on this as well, but I do see the advantage of complaining sometimes, not flaming, but letting you guys know what's wrong.

For instance, people complained rather loudly, and sometimes harshly, about the flee/sleep-blackjack-sing sleep tactic which you guys THANKFULLY nerfed. Same with unblockable deathblows from battleragers.

Thanks again for both of those, BTW.

Also, about Scion, it rocks now but when it did first come out there were 2 really big problems that a lot of people did see.

-The "mage bitch" problem, where all non-magical classes could never be in leadership and were subservient. You'd join knowing you'd have fewer powers and never be anything more than a mage's lapdog.

-The purpose of Scion. Now, it's got the whole "doomesday cult" RP thing, but when it first appeared it just seemed like a catch-all for empire/evil master refugees.

A lot of people were asking "What's the point of Scion?". Not just your clueless noobs, but long-time players as well.

If scions and the players hadn't bitched about the above 2, would you of noticed these problems and corrected them as quickly as you did?

Not saying we should all Graatch-out (though he seems to have chilled a good bit) but do you see how complaining can sometimes be beneficial?

Squeaky wheel and all...

Taking the two points you addressed, I believe it has been said by the imms before the scion changes took place that it was possible for a non-mage class to lead scions. (I think it was on the farewell thread of the guy who got the Taskmaster title or something.)

If that's the case, it was incorrect assumptions by pc's who complained, and therefore was not responsible for any change. What has changed is that someone has now done it (Etarekoth). I bet up until the day he did it, most eople thought it couldn't be done.

Regarding scion purpose...

I always get the impression that the scion purpose was there in the first place, but that most scions didn't really know what it was because the "group in the know" didn't bother explaining it to them. I know when I played my pre-change scions I didn't really know.

However, I think I still wouldn't know the purpose of post-change scion had I not spent time with Ghuljun. So perhaps not that much has changed here either.

-The purpose of Scion. Now, it's got the whole "doomesday cult" RP thing, but when it first appeared it just seemed like a catch-all for empire/evil master refugees.

A lot of people were asking "What's the point of Scion?". Not just your clueless noobs, but long-time players as well

I was talking about the revamp, not the initial implementation. The initial implementation was more vague- the staff that designed it was introducing three cabals on one day, and AFAIK needed the room to be able to adjust. Over my first year or two on staff, I developed the current backstory based on ideas I initially had as a mortal Valguarnera during some quests, and implemented the full details of it as the new set of powers was introduced.

The Change Fearers still came out in droves, even after admitting that, well, they hadn't actually played a Scion under the new regime. Over time, people actually played Scions (or a non-Scion who a Scion would actually discuss it with), and the overreaction faded.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>
>The Change Fearers still came out in droves, even after
>admitting that, well, they hadn't actually played a Scion
>under the new regime. Over time, people actually played
>Scions (or a non-Scion who a Scion would actually discuss it
>with), and the overreaction faded.

Um, i actually believe people got fed up asking and asking and asking. Every single hero that deleted from the cabal kept saying "What's the ####ing point? Certain people got immteraction, the rest just pk'ed". You promised that "change was coming soon" and when it didn't show for over a year that's when, "overreaction faded" (head>brick wall).

Nowhere in my post do I urge players to like everything. I value feedback, and a lot of the points you mention (like the changes to multiple Sleep attempts) were things I added as responses to well-thought out posts by players. My specific point is that people should evaluate changes only after they have taken the time to understand their effects, instead of going berserk any time we touch anything significant.

Aside: Players generally cheer things that make the game easier and boo things that make the game harder. The classic example of this is money- we've largely gotten runaway inflation under control, and we've been steadily adding things to do with money (new and often more powerful items in shops, bounties, etc.), lowering prices of things that were calibrated to old standards (healing, moving hometowns, etc.).

Thing is, you can't cheer the new stuff and boo the curtailing of unlimited resources. You can't add things to do with money without controlling its source- money is money because it has value, and value only comes from demand. You can't even add them at the same time- old characters with millions in the bank would clean up on new items for sale like aura wands, or by placing 6-digit bounties on people for sport. There's a logical sequence, and although progress has been slow at times (some people originally working on this aspect lost interest or have less time available), it's been going in the direction we outlined (publically, even) years ago.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

"Nowhere in my post do I urge players to like everything. I value feedback, and a lot of the points you mention (like the changes to multiple Sleep attempts) were things I added as responses to well-thought out posts by players. My specific point is that people should evaluate changes only after they have taken the time to understand their effects, instead of going berserk any time we touch anything significant."

This is gold, here. A lot of players, myself included, have at times forgotten the cardinal rule of constructive criticism. If you are going to bitch about something, for the love of god offer a reason why you think something is wrong (overpowered) and offer possible alternatives so it doesn't amount to a baseless flame thread.

Examples:

1. Scion is overpowered they sux0r.

2. I think the new scion powers are a bit strong because despoil is able to be carried over logins. I.e. I despoil a large item right before I log off, and if I log back in without my item despoil is still up for the timer. I'd like to see this effect dropped if they log in without the item.

Which post do you think the staff is more likely to respond to. Example 1 is a baseless flame. Example 2 is an attempt at constructive criticism. Great post by the way, and I notice change fearers aren't complaining about the recent boost to wand charges

I agree that if the sleep-casting class flees, there should be a temporary penalty to them using sleep on the same target again.

However, I don't agree that if the person fighting the sleep-casting class flees, the sleep-casting class should get a penalty. It isn't the fault of the sleep-casting class that the other guy keeps fleeing.

One implication of this is that it actually makes the flee-rot tactic more versatile (which I personally hate more than the flee-sleep tactic).

Have you considered applying flee-sleep penalties only when it is the necro or ap doing the fleeing (i.e. when they are the one forcing the use of the tactic).

Don't take these too badly please. I like 99% of the changes, but I'm only covering the ones I have issues with.

I'm not a big fan of enhanced reactions. Reasons follow (and the first one is not the important one):

1. I thought warriors didn't need an increase in power to be competitive. They were already very common, and with the exception of cranial I think all their tweaks have been acting to increase their strength? Once air-offense shifters became subject to maladictions, and once legacies came in, I think a warrior that does not focus on offense should be able to handle anyone.

2. The major reason...

Part of a warrior's strength is that he can use any weapon. No other class can do this. With the exception of paladins with a certain virtue, it effectively means that he can choose a weapon that his opponent cannot parry.

In my opinion, knowing when to sacrifice the use of your weapon specs in order to exploit weapon knowledge in a fashion that prevents your opponent from parrying (bearing in mind all warriors can get rid of shields), is part of the skill of playing a warrior.

It seems to me that this change, by reducing the ability of others to parry a warrior's blows -whatever weapon he chooses- reduces the impact of skill on the effectiveness of warriors. He no longer has to consider switching to non-specced weapons (or not nearly as often) because his hits won't be parried often enough to make up for loss of spec skills if he chooses not to. I see this as a skill that simply increases the level of "one-trick poniness". Ok, so the warriors aren't limited to one trick, but they certainly won't benefit as much from using a variety as they used to.

You realize what you're suggesting entails carrying around something on the order of 20 or so weapons, right? Assuming you want to dual wield the weapons you are going to choose to exploit your opponent's lack of skill in that weapon. And assuming you have more than just one or two of the two weapons you spec in.

That's obviously impossible, nobody could carry all that around.

Even more of a problem is that your theory that using a weapon that the enemy can't parry is so uber powerful. It's not. Especially against people with dam redux.

Lastly, let's consider your options if you use non-spec weapons. An example is helpful. You bust out those two daggers to fight the shaman who does not know how to use daggers. You can't bash him. You probably can't trip him. What now? Kick? Feinting his two attacks per round?

People have specs for a reason. Warriors didn't need them so much long ago because other classes weren't so diverse in their skills and powers. But now those other classes, like warriors, have been expanded enormously. The specs are something which make warriors overpower, it makes them playable against the other classes which over time have also received, in the words of forum junkies, lovin'.

I'm not for a moment suggesting you carry every single weapon around.

But sometimes it is better to get out those axes you aren't specialised with and bash an assassin than it is to start hacking him up with dagger maladictions when you know full well he runs before he is in danger.

Weapons I'd carry as a warrior, even if not specced, are a couple of axes (limited shield cleave and reduced parrying against assassins and thieves), a staff (for aps, if I was worried about them), and a pair of maces (if I was worried aobut rangers.

I wouldn't carry daggers, flails, whips or swords unless I happened to be specced in them. I'm also not suggesting that you should use a non-specced weapon against everyone you fight. However, if I happened to have landslide, I'd probably use drive against the shaman, or voker, and consider non-specced weapons with it.

Generally though I'm thinking of assassins, rangers, thieves, bards. Classes that can't fully protect from lag and can't soak up damage as well as some other classes.