Cliques - a problem? and how to deal with them?

[flames]

You can't make a rule saying that people must spend a certain amount of time in realm in order to hold a position, or be included in a particular group.

Do you have a list of realms where such a rule is officially present? I never seen that. And if it's unofficial, how would you enforce it?

Maybe we should better think how to motivate people to actually set goals for their characters and participate in power struggle? Because most characters are just silently following orders.

[Indirik]

With regards to mortality, forcing it upon people at this stage of the game does not work. I would suggest that a method of opting in to mortality that isn't tied to the Hero class might well be attractive though, I certainly know I would like to play all my characters with mortality turned on, yet not all are suited to being a Hero.

I fully support this idea. An irrevocable opt-in to mortality that is not tied to character class.

[Indirik]

FWIW: I'm going to start off kind of harsh here, because I think that this "investigator" proposals is so horrible that it needs to be nuked from orbit before it goes any further.

These are not "police", these are "investigators"

to-may-to / to-mah-to

The proposal incorporates an elite group of players, who's membership would have to be secret, who are officially sanctioned to engage in multi-accounting, who's entire purpose is to secretly infiltrate your realm by masquerading as a new account, spy on your behavior, perhaps provoke you into committing infringing behavior, secretly collect evidence, pass a subjective judgment as to whether or not you are playing the game correctly, and then provide an unsolicited critique of all your failings, including the ways that *you personally* are destroying the game. And if they don't get a response they like, they pass the case on up to someone else from the Enforcement Division who will bolt your ass and lock your account.

This may not be what you intended to propose, but I guarantee that this will be the perception of it.

I can't even begin to count the number of ways that this proposal will infuriate and alienate the player base. Every new player account will be suspected as a member of the secret police. The same people that *already* accuse the Titans of being the private enforcement arm that we devs use to ensure that our realms always win, will have a friggin' field day with this one. Hell, if I played a free game and found out they had a system like this, I'd probably walk away on the spot.

When a large pct of the players in a realm are reporting that the place is experiencing the problems listed, they go in and have a look for themselves.

If you think that a group of players is engaging in anti-social and destructive behavior, then report them to the Titans. They have tools available to investigate this much more effectively without even bothering with the new account sham. If we implement a system of polling the player base for their opinions of realms, then any significant problems/patterns can be passed on to the Titans for investigation. No need for any undercover sting operation.

This is why I purposely left out any reference to "Titan-like" - these are not Titans, and they are not there to punish.

If they have no authority to implement and enforce policy, then they are powerless, and can be safely ignored. Which means we would have pissed off quite a few players to implement a toothless system. Anyone who already doesn't care about creating a crappy player environment won't give a damn about what these "investigators" think.



I like some of your other ideas. The "share participation" thing is great. (But maybe you could stop with the all caps quoting...) People need to share the ability to participate in the game. Locking new players out just because they are new is a bad thing.

I'm a little confused, though, in the approach you are taking. Perhaps it's just that the conversation has gotten a little derailed. You've quoted your "NOT SHARE POWER, BUT RATHER, SHARE PARTICIPATION" slogan a few times. But one of your main points here has been against realms that have a policy of not providing positions until you've have XX days in the game/realm. Or maybe that's a minor detail that evolved into a big, distracting tangent. It's like you're saying that you don't have to give out positions of power to share the participation, but then waving around NOT giving out positions of power as proof that participation is being shared.

But, really, are there any realms out there that have official policies of locking people out until they've been in the realm for multiple RL years? If there are, then start naming names! I've only heard about something like that once or twice. That was yeas ago, and even back then everyone knew the policy was old, obsolete, not followed, and total bull!@#$.

Is there an effective, objective way to identify cliques, and break them up? Do they need to be broken up? I can say from personal experience that people's opinions on what constitutes a clique varies wildly. I've seen accusations fly over the fact that two characters had a tight IG bond, and supported each other with no public messages between them. "They're not communicating IG in a channel where I can see it, therefore they are obviously an OOC clique! How come you haven't locked them already?"

Are we really not talking about "cliques" so much as we are talking about bad behavior in general?

Perhaps we can end run around it by somehow making it clear to the player base, and specifically to new players, that the play experience varies wildly across the entire spectrum of the game. There's no way that we can ensure that every realm on every island appeals to every player. They should expect that they will probably need to sample several different realms, on several different islands, before they find one that suits their play style. Tom once mused about a way to enable characters from new accounts to quickly swap realms in order to more easily find a realm that matched their play style. Perhaps it needs to be explored and developed.

In addition, I like some of the other ideas that have been proposed, such as:
* Opening up the new player character limits again, allowing three nobles for a new account
* Perhaps restricting new accounts to one character per island for the first 90 days
* Implementing some kind of formal new-player mentoring system. Even just a basic, island-wide mentor channel for experienced players to opt into would be great.

The idea of enforcing an election every so often is an interesting one, but I don't really know that it would accomplish anything. Chances are that people would just elect the same leader again anyway. Any attempts to implement a forced regime change would be met with great hostility.

I'm not sure forced mortality for all characters would be very useful. Opt-in mortality not tied to the hero class would be a good thing, though.

[Eldargard]

I would rather see efforts made to educate and aid that make new rules. So much can be accomplished by teaching. When an organization want's to change it's culture handing down new rules from above is probably one of the least effective tactics. Training will make a world of difference though. I am not saying it is an easier option or that I know just how to do it but I all about exploring it.

Some things I'd like to teach new players:
Separating IC and OOC is important - stress this a lot!
It's OK to go somewhere else
It's OK to ask questions IC and OOC
It's OK to screw up and fail bad
It's OK to challenge others characters

[De-Legro]

I would rather see efforts made to educate and aid that make new rules. So much can be accomplished by teaching. When an organization want's to change it's culture handing down new rules from above is probably one of the least effective tactics. Training will make a world of difference though. I am not saying it is an easier option or that I know just how to do it but I all about exploring it.

Some things I'd like to teach new players:
Separating IC and OOC is important - stress this a lot!
It's OK to go somewhere else
It's OK to ask questions IC and OOC
It's OK to screw up and fail bad
It's OK to challenge others characters

Agreed, education while more difficult, does tend to yield better long term results.

[Ketchum]

I like to keep it simple. I do not like complicated, neither is the Developers who going develop the game and need spend lot of times to come out with codings. Since we going to dwell deeper into the player retention, here's my opinion.

As Indirik points out, the Mentor feature is the one feature we should bring back. Many of my characters have been in Mentor class, trying to nurture the new players and taught them the ropes. I even learn some new things about the game. This Mentor Feature encourage players to give back to the game and provide helpful tips and training to the new players and help to maintain player retentions. Make everyone know that asking a question(a newbie question to some older players but not to new players), is not wrong and influence all of us to not be afraid to ask question. New players need to be handle with care, especially if we are going to improve players retention. Nurture them, train them, teach them everything you know, and enjoy playing with them. Let them play at their own pace, welcome them, make themselves feel at home. That is human touch, that is sorely lacking nowadays not only in game but outside it.

About Miskel's "share participation" idea. I like the idea, and whenever I am in position of power and responsibility, I tend to give some responsibility and let other characters/players involve in them. Firstly as Region Lord, give them Steward position so that they can learn to handle food, and make them feel belong to the realm and have a stake in the realm, teamwork together. Secondly, when planning the realm direction to the next war, initiate referendum or discussion realmwide. Let everyone in the realm know, make them excited with your propraganda, your reasoning why this war must be declare, ask them for the next steps or what their likings and so on. As each realm grow smaller due to player base size, we should make everyone feel at home. The spies stuff is kinda ruin this at this time though.

[Eirikr]

I fully support this idea. An irrevocable opt-in to mortality that is not tied to character class.

While I have no desire to read through the rest of this thread, now seems like an opportune time to remind everyone of the many great suggestions for mortality already in Feature Requests. In fact, at least one moves for this exact idea.

[Haerthorne]

Another problem with some of these assumptions is the focus on "cliques". Sometimes the leadership of a realm becomes very inclusive and inward looking, taking known variables over unknown variables when they make decisions. This is how anyone makes decisions. Obviously BM is not as much like real life since the consequences for decisions you make are removed from enormous real world complications. Less risk for going out on a limb. Now some people are still held back by that risk.

With the number of players decreasing there are realms where there is really only one person with the power, sometimes as just a matter of running out of other players to rely upon. In those realms they are suspicious of just delegating to someone who is less than a month int he realm and that time can be awfully boring. In this atmosphere there is in fact even greater opportunity for players to experience more of the game than they used to since there is actually a huge demand for them to do stuff.

Perhaps we should make sure we have more discussions about the changing nature of relationships in BM, like how Europe changed after the Black Death. In game and out of game. Not everyone talks on the forums of course so it definitely has to be talked about in game.

Any new kind of rules or organisation to enforce those rules would miss the point. We shouldn't take a negative approach to the player base.

[Chenier]

I fully support this idea. An irrevocable opt-in to mortality that is not tied to character class.

I don't see the point of having it be irrevocable. Allow people to turn it on/off, and more people will use it. A kind of DNR.

[Indirik]

I don't see the point of having it be irrevocable. Allow people to turn it on/off, and more people will use it. A kind of DNR.

I just don't like the idea of characters making a decision as to whether or not they want to be mortal. It's like waking up in the morning and deciding "You know, I don't feel like dying today, so I think I just won't." Or making a decision to only die in huge battles, or against a certain enemy, etc. That just doesn't sit well with me. Either you're mortal, and can die of any of the myriad things that mortals die from, the undignified as well as the glorious, and not just in a heroic feat of arms against overwhelming odds. If less people use it because of that, so be it. It just means that the option isn't for everyone. And that's fine, too.

[Anaris]

I just don't like the idea of characters making a decision as to whether or not they want to be mortal. It's like waking up in the morning and deciding "You know, I don't feel like dying today, so I think I just won't." Or making a decision to only die in huge battles, or against a certain enemy, etc. That just doesn't sit well with me. Either you're mortal, and can die of any of the myriad things that mortals die from, the undignified as well as the glorious, and not just in a heroic feat of arms against overwhelming odds. If less people use it because of that, so be it. It just means that the option isn't for everyone. And that's fine, too.

And I agree.

I want it to be a decision to become mortal, not simply a whim.

It also means that if we decide, at some point, to give some sort of (subtle, to be sure) benefits to those who do choose to be mortal, they can't be gamed.

[Indirik]

With the number of players decreasing there are realms where there is really only one person with the power, sometimes as just a matter of running out of other players to rely upon. In those realms they are suspicious of just delegating to someone who is less than a month int he realm and that time can be awfully boring.

Any group, whether it is IC or OOC, who has a small, closed membership, is by definition a clique. It doesn't have to be OOC motivated to be bad. In fact, most of them are not OOC. It doesn't matter either way, though. Closed off and exclusive is no good. Players need to be inclusive of other players and allow them to participate.

This doesn't mean you can't have secrets, or that some information has to be kept close and restricted. But unreasonably long time-in-realm restrictions are just ... well ... unreasonable.  I don't see any problem with things like "You have to be in the realm for 30 days before you can join the Senate". But "You have to be in the realm for one year before you can join the military council" is not good.

Having said that, I don't see any realms with that kind of restriction anymore. And no one has come forward to name any names, even by hearsay. So that makes me think that perhaps these kind of restrictions just don't exist in the game right now.

The major problem is the realms where the top people in power are a closed off group, who simply don't include anyone outside their private council in anything at all. I would be that we've all experienced this kind of thing. The realm-wide channel is empty and devoid of all messages except for the occasional order or copy/pasted report. All conversations, debates, decisions, and information is shared only to the select few. Anyone who tries to do anything is told, basically, to shut up, get in line, and do what they're told. Not really good for player retention and engagement.

This kind of thing *does* exist in-game, right now. And I'm pretty sure it's the kind of thing that Miskel is talking about.

We shouldn't take a negative approach to the player base.

This is true.

[Chenier]

And I agree.

I want it to be a decision to become mortal, not simply a whim.

It also means that if we decide, at some point, to give some sort of (subtle, to be sure) benefits to those who do choose to be mortal, they can't be gamed.

Well, yea, obviously if perks are granted, then allowing one to change at will allows for this to be gamed. But if perks are granted, then that kind of detracts from the hero subclass, doesn't it?

But if no perks at all are granted, I still don't see the issue with allowing people to risk death when it suits them only. It's still just a risk, and a small one. It's not a click to die option. Have it changeable only once a month or so to prevent battle-specific customization, if you want, but I don't really see a point to constantly switching back and forth from mortal mode. Having the option to switch would just allow players to check on mortality when they feel their character has come to the end of his storyline instead of just stagnating him, while still allowing them to change their minds if the character gets involved in something exciting again.

[Anaris]

Well, yea, obviously if perks are granted, then allowing one to change at will allows for this to be gamed. But if perks are granted, then that kind of detracts from the hero subclass, doesn't it?

Only if it doesn't have better perks.

But if no perks at all are granted, I still don't see the issue with allowing people to risk death when it suits them only. It's still just a risk, and a small one. It's not a click to die option. Have it changeable only once a month or so to prevent battle-specific customization, if you want, but I don't really see a point to constantly switching back and forth from mortal mode. Having the option to switch would just allow players to check on mortality when they feel their character has come to the end of his storyline instead of just stagnating him, while still allowing them to change their minds if the character gets involved in something exciting again.

From where I sit, I see there being social benefits to being able to say that your character can die. Basically, being able to truthfully say that you're willing to put your life on the line, while someone else isn't, gives you something of a moral advantage.

Being able to turn that on any time you want, but turn it off briefly any time you expect to actually be facing real risk, is not something I consider desirable.

[Tandaros]

Wow... glad this is being discussed. A lot has been said but I'd like to give my two cents.

In a social game like Battlemaster, social groupings are natural. They are in fact a big part of the roleplaying aspect of the game. Marriages, oaths, etc, all make for an elaborate web of loyalties. That's part of what I love. However these are IC groupings. I know what OP means about OOC cliques. I personally like to have my chars 'run into' players I know I get along with, who share my playstyle.

Battlemaster seems to me a lot like school; there are groups, tribes if you will, and some people stick to their own while others float around. I try to float around and sample what's going on in different parts of the game, different realms, different continents. I think such actions might be perceived sometimes as flaky or whatever, but I think we need to value that kind of mobility.

I agree with Indirik, the idea of investigators here is fundamentally flawed. There is no unbiased judge here. Everyone is too close. I think we need a better solution...

I want to say we should revive mentors, but how about this: a new class, a bard or scholar (I'm thinking the meisters from GOT), which may be a rogue, and functions somewhat like a mentor/diplomat/adventurer. Perhaps if we leverage an 'international' playstyle we will have more mobility.

Just a thought.