BM culture

[Chenier]

Maybe because they don't have the old players setting the chatty example for them any more? We also don't have a lot of the copy/paste police work and civil work reports, etc. that we used to have.

I like to think that I am more chatty than the leaders of my day used to be. The realm overall was a lot more chatty back then, though.

[Zakilevo]

Well at least you are still trying. That is good. Someday I might even join one of your realm  ;)

[Bedwyr]

(Though the above could possibly be rose-tinted glasses? It was infuriating waiting for a chance at lordship, or rulership years and years ago. Rulers just didn't budge. They were as solid as rock. Positions were as hard to get then as they're easy to get now.)

Heh, yeah.  Damn difficult.  To enter the military academy in Abington to get trained to have a chance at getting a Marshalship if you passed the course you had to read Sun Tzu's Art of War and pass a Q&A session about it to show that you had a basic understanding of the concepts.   They trained me for a year, and I was the official apprentice of the General for most of that, and I still didn't even take all the "courses", because they put me through the abbreviated "strategy" run rather than the full "strategy and tactics" run.  Hell of a different time...

I suppose I agree in a way that people have got nastier towards each other. But with chat and interaction harder to come by, who is teaching the new players what the accepted forms are and ought to be? Why aren't we older players playing the game like it used to be played and interacting in the same ways? Surely we ought to be leading by example, but a lot of us have withdrawn. Older players who once might have been a pretty interactive bunch tend to be silent now - I mean, my characters tend often to go through these long periods where they're essentially silent automatons whereas a few years ago, I made more of an effort.

I try.  Every so often I pull something in Arcaea, like the award for Bagpipe and Unicorn Marshal (referencing the Royal Bagpipe Regiment and the Arcaean emblem of Unicorns.  And that's the only reason for it.  No others, nope...), or awards for the best (appropriate to a noble) insult on campaign, but I can't keep the stuff up solo, and generally only one or two people go along.  I think the real problem is a lack of player density.  Abington had 180 nobles at any given time.  Arcaea's the biggest realm on the Far East with ~60 (a whole bunch joined recently), and Astum is the biggest on Dwilight at 44.  You need more people to get self-sustaining stuff going.

[STiAle]

I would prefer that people stop throwing the word active around. It always makes my IR sense tingle.

Shall we use participate? That's definitely a problem.

[Chaotrance13]

When I last posted about my experiences as a new player regarding the BM Culture, the results were mixed. Some people saw the points I made and addressed them. Others said "it's hearsay, it's bull". This thread, so far, mirrors what I found in the Retention thread after I made that post - so some agreeing, some saying that there is no problem.

What I want to address in this one (as I have no real stance on the original post regarding IC asshattery at this time) is the OOC side of it, or to be precise these forums. Someone brought up the idea of 48-hour suspensions if you break the rules, or you troll/flame etc. I would like to maybe take that one step further.

When I look at the front page of the forums, and I look to see who moderates each one, there are names I've never seen post on these forums, at least not for the last few months. While I'm sure there are global moderators who can do the job, usually they have other things to worry about such as coding the game itself. What I think we need as a start are active, "local" moderators who can devote the time and effort to keeping their part of the forums clean and tidy as well as deal with any minor incidents.

That said, I do agree with the idea of handing out suspensions for misconduct. What we would need to define though, is whether the misconduct is based on the game's Social Contract, or whether it is based on a specific code of conduct for the forums. That is easy enough. What I've seen used before is a warning system that is also linked to your game account itself. Basically, on that game's forums you had 5 chances - 20% increments. I believe at 60%, you got a 1 day suspension. 80%, 2 days. 100% - your forum AND game account were banned. And appeals were very, very difficult.

I'm not suggesting that be implemented, because that could cause a conflict of IC and OOC which we have a clear definition of here (compared to that other game where there was no such thing). What I am saying though, is I think there needs to be a system where people can be given the proverbial kick up the backside. Maybe something along the lines of three strikes, or even follow Tom's example on the rules and go with one warning, then punishment. There are a myriad of issues with this such as who has this level of power, what do you do if you think you've been treated unfairly, and so on. But that said, there should be one defining concept - the only person above the system is Tom. No-one else.

I'll give an example of what I personally would like. I have no doubt it'll not come to pass, but it's just an example. I would add a new section of the forums, near the Magistrates section, where players can report issues that they feel are rulebreaking - and I mean solely for forum infractions, not for in-game stuff as that is the realm of the Titans/Magistrates. One of the assigned moderators takes a look at the report (set format, needs to include a link to the offending post), and decides what to do based on what they've seen. So if the reporter was being an ass earlier on the thread which caused a particularly nasty rebuke, then it's "both as bad as each other" and both get smacked verbally. If it continues, then warnings/infractions get handed out. If there are enough to hit a trigger point (say, second warning/infraction), then a suspension can be handed out. There would be a place to appeal these warnings, and good behaviour will result in them coming off at a rate of one per month or so.

I would welcome thoughts on what others thing the OOC state of the forums is, whether they think there is a problem or not and so on. Because all of this which I've written would obviously depend on whether there is actually a problem or not, really.

[De-Legro]

When I last posted about my experiences as a new player regarding the BM Culture, the results were mixed. Some people saw the points I made and addressed them. Others said "it's hearsay, it's bull". This thread, so far, mirrors what I found in the Retention thread after I made that post - so some agreeing, some saying that there is no problem.

What I want to address in this one (as I have no real stance on the original post regarding IC asshattery at this time) is the OOC side of it, or to be precise these forums. Someone brought up the idea of 48-hour suspensions if you break the rules, or you troll/flame etc. I would like to maybe take that one step further.

When I look at the front page of the forums, and I look to see who moderates each one, there are names I've never seen post on these forums, at least not for the last few months. While I'm sure there are global moderators who can do the job, usually they have other things to worry about such as coding the game itself. What I think we need as a start are active, "local" moderators who can devote the time and effort to keeping their part of the forums clean and tidy as well as deal with any minor incidents.

That said, I do agree with the idea of handing out suspensions for misconduct. What we would need to define though, is whether the misconduct is based on the game's Social Contract, or whether it is based on a specific code of conduct for the forums. That is easy enough. What I've seen used before is a warning system that is also linked to your game account itself. Basically, on that game's forums you had 5 chances - 20% increments. I believe at 60%, you got a 1 day suspension. 80%, 2 days. 100% - your forum AND game account were banned. And appeals were very, very difficult.

I'm not suggesting that be implemented, because that could cause a conflict of IC and OOC which we have a clear definition of here (compared to that other game where there was no such thing). What I am saying though, is I think there needs to be a system where people can be given the proverbial kick up the backside. Maybe something along the lines of three strikes, or even follow Tom's example on the rules and go with one warning, then punishment. There are a myriad of issues with this such as who has this level of power, what do you do if you think you've been treated unfairly, and so on. But that said, there should be one defining concept - the only person above the system is Tom. No-one else.

I'll give an example of what I personally would like. I have no doubt it'll not come to pass, but it's just an example. I would add a new section of the forums, near the Magistrates section, where players can report issues that they feel are rulebreaking - and I mean solely for forum infractions, not for in-game stuff as that is the realm of the Titans/Magistrates. One of the assigned moderators takes a look at the report (set format, needs to include a link to the offending post), and decides what to do based on what they've seen. So if the reporter was being an ass earlier on the thread which caused a particularly nasty rebuke, then it's "both as bad as each other" and both get smacked verbally. If it continues, then warnings/infractions get handed out. If there are enough to hit a trigger point (say, second warning/infraction), then a suspension can be handed out. There would be a place to appeal these warnings, and good behaviour will result in them coming off at a rate of one per month or so.

I would welcome thoughts on what others thing the OOC state of the forums is, whether they think there is a problem or not and so on. Because all of this which I've written would obviously depend on whether there is actually a problem or not, really.

If you want to report a post, there is a button for it at the bottom of the each post. That will notify the relevant moderator. Right now I find moderating rather difficult, we don't have a concrete policy on what is or isn't acceptable and what if any punishments apply. Since I can be rather heavy handed about such things, I've chosen to take a softer approach using PM's to inform people if they need to think about their behavior.

[Revan]

Maybe because they don't have the old players setting the chatty example for them any more? We also don't have a lot of the copy/paste police work and civil work reports, etc. that we used to have.

I do think that's key. I was in chatty realms when I first started out, with some good and memorable RPers too, and it still took a few months before I worked up the courage to start getting involved in the life of my realms. To interact with others publicly and on a semi-regular basis. The thing is, once you gain that confidence to just speak up and throw out an RP or letter any time, you're set fair for life in BM. It's no trouble to go to a new place and start talking at these 40 new faces or what have you without feeling embarrassed or inhibited or anything else. Maybe that's something the young'uns are missing?

Heh, yeah.  Damn difficult.  To enter the military academy in Abington to get trained to have a chance at getting a Marshalship if you passed the course you had to read Sun Tzu's Art of War and pass a Q&A session about it to show that you had a basic understanding of the concepts.   They trained me for a year, and I was the official apprentice of the General for most of that, and I still didn't even take all the "courses", because they put me through the abbreviated "strategy" run rather than the full "strategy and tactics" run.  Hell of a different time...

That's insane. Though saying that, it's not like Abington faired too badly in war back in those days ;-) I do remember that I pretty much daily hoped I'd log in and find that Doc's Revenge was paused so I might have a crack at the rulership in ASI. Only after about two years of painstakingly building myself up and working towards it did I get the chance to go for the rulership, and even then, it nearly didn't come off. Nowadays though you can probably rise to rulership in any realm inside a couple of months if you put your mind to it. Same for anything else. Different times indeed.

I try.  Every so often I pull something in Arcaea, like the award for Bagpipe and Unicorn Marshal (referencing the Royal Bagpipe Regiment and the Arcaean emblem of Unicorns.  And that's the only reason for it.  No others, nope...), or awards for the best (appropriate to a noble) insult on campaign, but I can't keep the stuff up solo, and generally only one or two people go along.  I think the real problem is a lack of player density.  Abington had 180 nobles at any given time.  Arcaea's the biggest realm on the Far East with ~60 (a whole bunch joined recently), and Astum is the biggest on Dwilight at 44.  You need more people to get self-sustaining stuff going.

Player density is probably right. I find it very easy myself to lapse into silence again because it's such a chore and an effort trying to keep something interesting going on your own. Or simply watching myself RP into the ether. And you know, it's not like I have anything left to prove or any need to make my name look any shinier. I have the medals, I've got the fame, I have the experience. I can probably get a way with lapsing into silence for long periods without it adversely affecting my ability to do what I want to do in the game. I suppose that means I'm a damaging influence on BM culture as an older player really, because I don't see myself as having to make an effort any more. I can play it my own way and hang everyone else. Maybe I've become just as individually focused as I think all the newer players are? O.o

[Indirik]

That's insane. Though saying that, it's not like Abington faired too badly in war back in those days ;-)

Perdan didn't require that kind of thing to become a marshal. It was more of a performance-based promotion, but there were rarely any openings for promotion.

I think, though, that Abington and Perdan were very similar. In Perdan the armies were organized by the ruler's message groups. We had three or four armies. With 160+ nobles, you had the flexibility to do that. The Marshals/Vice Marshals filled out Excel spreadsheets on a daily basis to report the army's status to the military council. We routinely had 10+ players available to plan out moves at each turn change, full and half, and issue orders guaranteed to be given less than one hour after the turn. (Not necessarily the same players, but some did both.)

As others have mentioned, I also think that player density is one of the key points. Say you have a 5% participation rate for large-scale, realm-wide RPs. With 150 characters, that's ~7.5 people. Plenty to keep an RP alive and moving. With 35 characters, that's only 1.75.  And if you consider that 10 of those players are probably dual character, it leaves you 25 players, or probably about 1.25 participants. Even if you double that, because you think that the remaining players are more dedicated, that's still only 2.5 physical people to participate. With that few people working at it, it dies fast. (I think that's really where realms composed of a lot of dual-character players really suffer. The fewer physical players in the realm really limits the mix of players and subsequently the opportunities for interaction.)

[Tom]

So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?

[Anaris]

So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?

Honestly, at this point, I really believe that would cause more harm than good, as people who were deeply invested in those continents left the game for good.

I think that the code changes we are making have a very good chance of improving retention so that we see real increases in the playerbase again. 

The only continent I can see being a viable candidate for closing would be Beluaterra, and that only because of the way invasions work.

I also think that nearly everyone will be hoping to see it reopen at some point when the player numbers have increased again.

[Solari]

So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?

You will find more than one person that supports the idea of blowing up BT.  I still think the invasion should open up a portal to another continent (Dwilight), allowing daimons, humans, or both, to stream through from BT. >:D

[Morningstar]

You're largely going to find two schools of thought regarding what to do with game worlds and what provides the best opportunity for player growth/retention.  And it boils down to differences in personality preferences.  I'll give you a Jungian slant just because that's what I'm most familiar with.

School A - This group likes status quo. The box has held up this long, so let's keep thinking of better ways to reinforce the box if problems arise. It's the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality, and if it is broken, look for the simplest solution to not disrupt flow.  This group will hold on to the bitter end to history and nostalgia and like to make references to "how we used to do it".  They're not going to be as excited about jumping into a new project, but once it's set up, they'll be the ones to last the longest in it.  But until they can see it in front of them, it's not tangible enough to be bothered with. In BM, largely you'll find these people congregating in the East Continent and Atamara.  A hardcore Beluaterra subset would also fit this description- BT being reset is not a novelty "change" so much as a way of life and thus has become their default status quo.

School B - This group likes new, it likes change, and it likes novelty. The box is a box for them, and why can't we think outside the box? Or better yet, blow the box up. The thinking here is that status quo = boredom/apathy/complacency and people need a jolt to keep them excited and energized about what's going on.  Just because it's not broken doesn't mean it can't be improved- or completely rebooted in favor of a new way of doing things.  Rather than looking back to reference the past, this group will usually be heard saying "maybe next time we should try this instead" or "hey I have an idea that I don't think has been done before. Can we do it?"  They're going to jump in with both feet whenever a new project arises. It's a chance to be able to share ideas and develop something that's not yet tangible, but this group can see it or even taste it.  They go full bore until things start to slow down, even out, and the novelty wears off. By then, it starts to get "boring" and they're looking for a new project or new "event" to liven things up or they'll move on.  In BM, you'll find most of these people on Dwilight, the Far East (as it was being developed and then colonized), Beluaterra (either during an invasion or just after to re-colonize), and anywhere else it seems like something new and exciting is going on.

Most of you will find yourself absolutely identifying with one side and largely abhorring the other. But truth be told, it's a personality preference and neither one is right or wrong.  It's a personal preference and we have players who favor both.  In the same way, tackling the issue from only one side of the argument will marginalize the other side, isolate them, and drive them away from the game. Which could account for periods of turnover at any given point during development this past decade since the game started up.  You focus too much on the new, the status quo people complain about the changes and leave. You let things play out as they are, the people looking for novelty and change complain about the game being too static, stuffy, and they leave too.

It's why games like WoW constantly release new patches and new expansions with new races/classes/quests/worlds and yet continue to fine tune older quests/mechanics/etc to make sure the standard grind part is still enjoyable and doesn't chase off the older players.  Even there, Blizzard and the others fail to make everyone happy.

[Vellos]

Honestly, at this point, I really believe that would cause more harm than good, as people who were deeply invested in those continents left the game for good.

I think that the code changes we are making have a very good chance of improving retention so that we see real increases in the playerbase again. 

The only continent I can see being a viable candidate for closing would be Beluaterra, and that only because of the way invasions work.

I also think that nearly everyone will be hoping to see it reopen at some point when the player numbers have increased again.

This.

Some might want Dwilight closed. I personally think East Island and Atamara are wastes of space (see "Retention Revisited").  But I know many players are deeply invested there.

Phase out Beluaterra. Reopen when the player base expands ("recolonization"). Finish coding changes ongoing now (which by and large are excellent; new estates rock and removal of TMP has not reduced wars; maybe increased them in Dwilight).

[D`Este]

I think we rather need different kind of islands to offer diversity, rather then having the same kind of. BT has an unique setting which attracts people, dwi is unique, the rest is all rather the same.  Rather merge EC/AT then close BT.

[Dante Silverfire]

I think we rather need different kind of islands to offer diversity, rather then having the same kind of. BT has an unique setting which attracts people, dwi is unique, the rest is all rather the same.  Rather merge EC/AT then close BT.

The thing is that regardless of the solution that is created someone is going to be upset. Having played on all of the islands (except Colonies), I can definitely see where everyone will be coming from when they make their arguments but player density is important imho. We need more players to be playing together instead of separately.

Now, my personal opinions is that the easiest solution is a gradual closing down of Beluaterra through either an invasion which can't be won, or some sort, and either have them escape to Dwilight (with a possibility of chase?) or have an escape to any particular continent they choose. That would help first off while still giving the invasion fanatics time to get in one more invasion defense.

EC/AT are essentially the same continent with just different realms, cultures, etc, but they are both played the same way from all that I can tell. I know they are vastly different but essentially all we are doing here is splitting the playerbase over two continents. There is NO good way to fix that situation without more players though. Also, closing down one continent in favor of the other is likely impossible, (even though CE could essentially have been said to have "won" Atamara if they win the war over the next year). The only situation I can see being equal to both continents is to close both, and open up a single new continent which both player bases would go into, of about the same size, and it could be on the same map. They would just start from scratch and go from there, but this would be looked upon with disdain by many.

Essentially we'd then have the Far East, Dwilight, and 1 new continent (along with Colonies). This would give one continent for each type of play that is currently supported (with the exception of Beluaterra, but I don't see a way to preserve that).