Moving Forward

[corey]

gramm is right.  maybe its time to remove locate from the game and make almost all items no_limit, low % loads. 

then maybe rent decay wouldnt even have to be a thing.  limited items loaded on the first day of the wipe and still being rented 7+ months later is seriously broken.

I had suggested this a long time ago and honestly I think it would make the Arctic community better in general.

[Gramm]

just reiterating a good idea corey : ) the truest way to defeat deeprent, is to punish decay times in rent.

[merk]

Hi, a long time returning player here and sort of an outsider, but I thought I offer a viewpoint that i don't think has been addressed .

Before we make any more drastic changes, does arctic collect any statistics/measurements around gameplay.

This is just a random list i thought of -- there's probably a ton more interesting stats than this.

• Active players[daily, weekly, monthly, wipely]
• Active clans.
• Number groups formed.
• Number of people in a group.
• Most active zones by level <you would expect as the later the season gets, the harder zones become more popular>
• Most well-liked zones.
• Active eq (how often is it being worn in the game?)
• length of rent of eq
• avg strength of player [hp/healing/damage]
• Length of game play sessions.
• What is the last event that people tend to quit on? pk, DT, Grinding for that last book, lack of zones

If we aren't collecting such statistics, I would strongly encourage the immortals to start collecting this type of data and to make it transparent to the community. I think it'll help make better decisions --

For example ---
if we are limit items to % load, would this increase the "active" eq in the game?
if we are creating new zones, what type of zone and which level of zone should we make?
if we want to change group sizes, what affect would this have on the number of people in a group per session?

As stated, I think if we want to benefit the most number of players in the game, we should use stats to measure this and use this as a basis to communicate decisions being made.

It's much harder for reasonable players to gripe against data-backed decisions.

[Dyl]

ArcticMUD Business Intelligence edition was slated to be released after Lube 2.1

[snax]

I happened upon forums today.  I have decided I'm probably not ever going to be as calm and normal as a normal person.  This doesn't make me a bad person.  I am petitioning someone who is higher up to consider giving me building priviledges with extremely limited read privileges while still being willing to help me fix/tweak/explain specs.  Schallsea never came into being, but I think if someone is willing to humor a mostly-ignore-randy but let-him-build-a-zone request, that I actually am willing to make several contributions in the forthcoming wipe.  I don't plan on logging in to zone again, but I am willing to beg/solicit a building slot.  (Note: when I play this game I go from 0-60 in under 2 seconds) (crazy = 60) (So, if someone who is a higher imm can create a circumstance officially or unofficially where I could write a zone and maybe get help for small parts of it, I'ld like to do that.)


 [0 desire for meta-game glory, 0 powertripping, 100% just throw out some ideas, write edescs, oedescs, rdescs, etc and get help with a few clutch specs/procs]

[Blobble]

hahahha What the bapt did I just read!? Good Lord

[Gramm]

its a trap!!!!

[Hoodoo]

Minor request:   fix  Archimedes zone links. 

Thank you for considering all of the requests for unbapting the game listed above.   Botting/multiing should still be responded to with bricks to the face, but I generally love the other ideas and Jorquin's response.  Look forward to perhaps playing again, after my mortgage closes.

Jason

[Jorake]

I liked the idea Gramm had. Register your bot. Make them all chaotic something. Don't use NO limited gear on it.

I'll be honest. I end up multing every wipe. I've never had a bot. But I have played two chars at once. It's something that can't be stopped really. Hell. You can't even ban someone from the game anymore because of proxies and etc.

So let's try this registration thing maybe for a couple months. See how it goes. It allows those who want to play 2 chars but doesn't know how or doesn't want to get into trouble the chance to do what 100% of every clan does.

Daniel used to multi like a mother bapter! And look where he's at now!😜

[blackmagus]

I believe using a single multi at any given time should be allowable in zoning only. If someone uses a multi or a bot for PK then they should be warned/abyssed/deleted/banned, in that order.

[lurker]

I believe using a single multi at any given time should be allowable in zoning only. If someone uses a multi or a bot for PK then they should be warned/abyssed/deleted/banned, in that order.

I thought part of the new regime was LESS immortal intervention. Rules like the above require a lot of interpretation and enforcement.

For example, is it "using a multi or bot to pk" if you get attacked while zoning (and using a "legal" multi, as per your rule) and you kill the attacker? Does it matter if you leave your second multi afk or not? What if you PK with a single character while benefiting from having a multi online elsewhere for information gathering, or holding gear, or something.

IMO such rules should be avoided. They just create hard feelings when enforced in a way other than the most obvious interpretation.

[Hoodoo]

I am firmly against any legality of multiing.  This game is based around grouping, and the restriction against multiing forces people to include others.  Daniel's history of multiing shows the downsides:  at the time, rather than including others, he simply ran zones on cleric/ocean.  It went against the basic ideals of this game:  legal multiing turns a social game into a competitive scripting exercise.

[merk]

Until someone can prove that multing or botting affects the number of people who want to be in a group with actual statistics, this is just going to be a endless debate.

I believe the more content available to people the better, the only way that can happen at the current population levels is to use or have the mud provide bots, since there's not enough people who can or want to group at all times.

It also allows people to learn the how to pop the stronger eq, which is better for the game since it'll introduce competition for them. Is the game really fun for CORE when they can 1v8 another clan? I think the game is better when there  are many strong clans and people can choose to play with any of them.

The discussions about having the best eq on bots -- is easily correctable -- go pk them. You'll easily find that a human behind a bot is still much better than a bot. Clans will still want to group with strong players -

My proposal --
For the last month before the wipe-- have like a mini-season and implement rules that are controversial. i.e. in this case allow multing/botting.
Run surveys, and post statistics afterwards (if you were collecting such things in the first place)  -- discuss.

People may be surprised with the results.

[Jorquin]

The botting/multi-ing debate is a really tricky one. There's positives and negatives to both sides of this argument. Here's my perspective from both angles. I'm not saying I lean in one way or the other, just giving you the honest truth.

Hoodoo's hard line approach isn't ideal. People are going to do it regardless and by taking the hard line approach we push people out the door. The reality is  50% (or more) of people either multi, bot, or have a close friend they play with who does one of the two. Dishing out punishment to them pushes people away because the person punished feels slighted and often stops playing, then their friends have one less buddy around which makes things less fun. It's also practically possible to effectively police this, and some people will get away with it. This then leads to allegations of favoritism as people say "But they're doing it, and you don't punish them! This is unfair!".

On the other hand, some people are fundamentally against the idea of multi-ing and botting, which means they'd likely stop playing if it were allowed. Opening the floodgates for legalizing the whole thing is a terrible idea because the game would be filled with groups containing 1 player and 7 automatons, and it would effectively become a solo RPG.  Having some sort of "regulated system" is also fraught with danger because it goes straight back to not being able to effectively and consistently police the rule which leads to allegations of favoritism.


In short, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

[eddiex]

While I believe you have a very good pulse on the multiing/botting issue, Jorquin, I think the do nothing approach only benefits those who break the rules and the hardliner opposition. We have seen a lot of people in here post their support for multiing/botting in some form as well.

It is clear some people will circumvent the system and as you also pointed out it is nearly possible to police.  I think the idea of allowing in addition character per player as the (legal) operating procedure only reduces the severe competitive advantage a player breaking the rules already has, given it is very likely some of these players will slip through the cracks.  The easiest way to regulate this would simply have a multiing player log his alternate from the same IP.

It seems to be a compromise that is far more fair then the it is what it is mentality.  I choose to play with a certain group of players already, forcing people to play with others they may or may not see eye to eye with is not an enticing production. So in some instances, like when my clan mass quit. Id rather quit then join forces with less desirable company. If I had a 2nd char id be able to have much greater versatility in zoning capabilities. Right now the only reasonable solo play character for my skill level is DK, Thief, and Shaman on a limited basis.