Discussion: Dual Guilding to Removed

[Rothgar]

- We did not discuss this decision with players because we knew the overall player reaction would be negative. Therefore, there was no need to poll for a view of pbase feelings. We felt those negative feelings would only be exasperated when we asked players how they felt, then went against their wishes anyway. Staff were absolutely unanimous on this decision, which says something about how needed we think it is. Staff have to make hard decisions now and again.

Wait, so you realised that this would be negatively received and did it anyway? Maybe I'm confused : why would the staff take a decision that's critized by players and non-players alike, known to be wholly unpopular, and then simply implement it anyway? At that point, what's the point of even announcing it? Just do what the NSA did and do it anyway. I'm baffled as to why such a generally unpopular item not only made it to the staff talking points, but was basically automatically implemented?

- To be clear, there are multiple reasons for this change, which were listed on the OOC channel.

Not all of us were on the OOC channel. I'm on vacation. Could those of us not fortunate enough to get a chance to catch that time on OOC get a repost of what was said?

there are also serious thematic problems with people having multiple professions. It's extremely unrealistic. I don't know a single practicing doctor/policeman real life. Or a shop owner/priest. Or an actor moonlighting with another full time profession. Heck, most people with full time,
professional jobs do not have other full time, professional jobs.

Urth, not Earth, as we're fond of saying. Just because it's not present on Earth doesn't mean that we're not playing a MUD, and as has been pointed out to me many times before, realism takes a back seat to TI rules. I believe that this limits options for new players, and will neuter decisions for covert guildies. At this point, I'd be suspicious of anyone who told me they won't be guilded. There's no reason, now, for denying it, and it'd basically tell me that they already belong to another guild. It's a stupid meta, but it's been put in, now.

- As for why we grandfathered - that's because we're not heartless. No one in a dual guilding position was doing anything wrong, they were just playing the game as it was presented to them. We recognize it took time and energy to get into multiple guilds. Nor are we keen to change people's existing characters and situation with the wave of a magic wand; that's painful for everyone. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, here it can be. So we did.

So, what, newer players just get a slap on the back and the assurance that things will never go back to the way they once were? That doesn't handle the question of what the new players get in response to this at all. Older players are once again getting something for nothing, and I don't find it fair at all to put the newer players out.

Overall, though, I'm just going to mirror what the others said, as a semi-active player who's more or less been forced out of the game by outside, OOC circumstances : this is such an odd, out-of-character decision that I'm more amazed that it even made it into implementation. I can't imagine what brought it on - I'm assuming that there were complaints made about realism and IC/OOC or what have you. I don't think we'll get a good answer on what caused it, and I have too much respect for you to believe that you made such an unpopular choice out of the blue and just pushed it through on the other admins. I would just say that this is an absolutely foolish decision, at best, regardless of what you say on the forums, and I think that it was foolishly impulsive to remove dualguilding after a few years of having it in. I guess, overall, I'm just disappointed by your responses to these concerns. And concerns in general, really.

[Kinaed]

Thank you for bringing this post back on topic, Rothgar.

In a general sense:

- Yes we realized there would be many negative reactions to this decision. I'll note that we believe there are positive reactions too. That said, Staff are both owners and custodians of the game, responsible for making hard decisions, so we perform that function as best we are able. The point of announcing it is because people still need to know in order to function.

- Regarding not being on the OOC Channel - I understand, which is why we were happy to reiterate here. Sadly, I don't have a log of what was said, but am happy if anyone else does for them to post it. That said, typically we've discovered that anytime we make an announcement, it's best to do so in multiple mediums to ensure everyone gets the news. We posted about this on the general board, then discussed it on OOC and visnet, and also have this thread here.

- Re: Urth, not Earth - there's some deviation that's just too far, and the overall cultural picture of how dual guilding affected TI didn't make the case for us. This is a subjective view, however. I respect your opinion if you believe it should be another way. It is not 100% fair, and I am aware of it, that players are subjected to Staff views on these matters, but there are good reasons that we are set up as we are for decision making. I hope that our staff being sensitive to the issue and caring about players' feelings and views in a general sense makes up for it, particularly when the occasional tough decision comes along like this one where the Staff view is that a consultative approach isn't in the game's best interest.

- What new players get out of this is debatable, but what the game as a whole gets out of this is a more thematic, focused game with better culture around guilding and more consistent implementation of code restrictions that don't rely on staff memory about what we did the last time.

- With regards to people being suspicious OOCly and taking that IC - I really prefer people didn't play the game OOCly and openly announce that they plan to do so. Similarly, I lose respect when players say 'Well, I'll just inflict of damage on myself to avoid being backstabbed'. All of this treats TI like a hack and slash game with winners and losers instead of a roleplay game where the idea is for everyone to tell a good story, even when it comes to playing with the 'opposite team'. I'd like to entreat players who feel this way to reconsider.

- I'm honored that you feel this approach is out-of-character for us - it generally is because we do care, and contrary to some earlier expressed views, I personally think TI staff are very resilient and open minded when it comes to respectful dissent, at least in comparison to many games I've personally played. Our approach still has to be tailored to the situation, however. I don't know of any successful game that is run as an all out democracy. I know some players aren't Staff's (or my personal) biggest fans, but that's life. We're doing our best.

[Taunya]

- Regarding not being on the OOC Channel - I understand, which is why we were happy to reiterate here. Sadly, I don't have a log of what was said, but am happy if anyone else does for them to post it. T

1:24 AM February 18: [OOC] Jayne: "I mean I don't know that dual
guilding hurts anything? And how many people actually do it without good
reason? I mean even theives and mages need day jobs."
1:25 AM February 18: [OOC] Zarryka: "So wait, if we are low rank in a
guild right now, and dual-guilded, we won't be able to raise above said
rank?"
1:25 AM February 18: [OOC] Ventus: "You won't be able to rise above
rank 10"
1:25 AM February 18: [OOC] Ventus: "Which is pretty high"
1:25 AM February 18: [OOC] Kinky: "We are removing it because we have
several problems with dual guilding: 1) codewise, there are underlying
issues to the setup that are causing problems, 2) culturally, characters
have gotten unthematic with regards to guild crossings, 3) we believe that
it's damaging to the guilds for characters to be split in their focus."
1:26 AM February 18: [OOC] Raspberries: "Well, for an example, one
former thief joined the merchants and never did a single thing, hardly ever
stepping out of southside. no interactions at all with who they were
supposed to be apprenticed under, etc. But I bet they made plenty of use of
the guild skills."
1:26 AM February 18: [OOC] Jayne: "Oh. That makes sense then! Thanks
for explaining that Kinky. "
1:27 AM February 18: [OOC] Lurky eyeballs raspberries "Having been
epion in the past, it ain't just the thieves who are guilty of such
behavior. Plenty of folks used to join the physicians for herbalism and
never actually bother with physician related rp."
1:28 AM February 18: [OOC] Kinky: "Yes, that is one of the cultural
issues we've identified."

Basically what's being discussed here. There may have been further discussion which I've missed though.

[Kinaed]

Thanks Taunya. There was some commentary on visnet and a small blurb the next day also, if anyone has those and wants to post them.

[Voxumo]

(This is all my opinion, and based on what I can perceive of the game. Any statements are based solely on my experiences and views, as such experiences and views may differ.)
While I was initially quite against this change, I've had time to think it over. I think dual-guilding was an issue for a long time, but it was disguised as multiple different issues, but all issues stemming from one.

The main issue was guildskills IMO. Just as Vicannia, there were multiple people who joined the physician, often already being in the merchants, who would come in, seem all eager to join... and then never show up again. Yet down the road they'd magically open up a shop selling chanderly goods. We'd have members of the combat focused guilds who would join to learn medicine, yet icly they would say they couldn't be bothered to devote as much time to the physicians as their other guild, due to duties and whatnot.

It was blatant abuse of the system, yet if you denied them access people got on your back about it oocly and icly. Yes these were sometime rare cases, but still issues. Dual-guilding and guilding in general had seemed to become such a thing that it was expected to be a "Right" of players, not something they might have to work towards.

I think in the long-run this will be like Assets. Alot of people did not like the changes to assets, and argued that the change favored older players versus newer, and were quick to say it would be the end of the game. Yet here we are, half a year later, and for all intents and purposes the game is still alive. If this change does end up being so bad for the game, I imagine just like with some other changes it can be reversed. But this change also forces more rp between the guilds.


Also while the concern for the brotherhood is... noted, As the current Tenebrae, I can assure folks steps have been taken by staff to ensure my guildmembers are not left to flounder in the wake of this change.

[Starstarfish]

Dual-guilding and guilding in general had become such a thing that it was expected to be a "Right" of the players, not something they might have to work towards.

It was blatant abuse of the system, yet if you denied them access people got on your back about it oocly and icly.

I don't disagree with that part of the issue. That said, the other part of that is the OOC idea that someone isn't being promoted "fast enough." IE - that time on a char (even if that time hasn't really been spent during Guild stuff but just more generally "around") automatically should mean a promotion. IE - that the culture feels at least that it is more on you to prove why you didn't promote someone rather than on them as to why they deserve it. Same as you should seek them out for scenes etc rather than them seek you out or meet you in the middle.
It can or has felt very top-town wherein the burden comes from the top rather than folks needing to do work to reach the "top" as it were. Will this change influence this? Hopefully but I think the changes to financial rewards for membership/keeping good membership might do so more.

[Voxumo]

Dual-guilding and guilding in general had become such a thing that it was expected to be a "Right" of the players, not something they might have to work towards.

It was blatant abuse of the system, yet if you denied them access people got on your back about it oocly and icly.

I don't disagree with that part of the issue. That said, the other part of that is the OOC idea that someone isn't being promoted "fast enough." IE - that time on a char (even if that time hasn't really been spent during Guild stuff but just more generally "around") automatically should mean a promotion. IE - that the culture feels at least that it is more on you to prove why you didn't promote someone rather than on them as to why they deserve it. Same as you should seek them out for scenes etc rather than them seek you out or meet you in the middle.
It can or has felt very top-town wherein the burden comes from the top rather than folks needing to do work to reach the "top" as it were. Will this change influence this? Hopefully but I think the changes to financial rewards for membership/keeping good membership might do so more.

I can't agree with you more on this. Time in a guild, in my opinions, means jack diddly squat when it comes to promotion if said person hasn't made a show of actually being a part of the guild. On the flip-side, if a person is doing their all to really represent and be a part of a guild, promotion might be faster.

Overall I just think this change will hopefully make people better appreciate their guilds.

[Temi]

Here's the log from OOC chat the next day. Apologies if I missed anything - had to edit it down by hand.

Code: Select all

[OOC] Tasker: "Wish there was a discussion about this before hand, I didn't hear anything about it in the OOC meeting."

[OOC] Temi: "Yeah, it wasn't discussed at the OOC meeting, but separately by staff due to some other stuff"

[OOC] Kinky: "It wasn't raised in the OOC meeting. It was on the Staff Talking points and was discussed during the staff meeting. This often means a player brought it up throughout the week, but it could have been a staff member who raised it."

[OOC] Kinky: "Sadly, we don't record who raised things."

[OOC] Temi: "We knew it would hurt some in the short term, but we really think everything will be stronger in the long term, so.. we're sorry for the short term hurt."

[OOC] Kinky: "I should note - this item is one where staff were very unanimous."

[OOC] Tasker: "Well, it seems to me it is going to have a big effect on how some people play. So, would've been nice to have at least a discussion bout it beforehand x_x I can't see the Brotherhood being able to survive for example, if none of them can have covers or something else to give them RP hooks."

[OOC] quanin: "How are staff invisioning this improving TI? Maybe I'm in the minority here but I'm not seeing it."

[OOC] quanin: "Also yes, what Tasker said."

[OOC] Kinky: "You should be aware that Temi and I come from a TI that did not have dual guilding and did have the Brotherhood."

[OOC] Tasker: "I don't think we have a big enough playerbase to further dilute what characters can achieve."

[OOC] Kinky: "We have a larger pbase than that TI as well."

[OOC] Temi: "From Kinky last night:  [OOC] Kinky: "We are removing it because we have several problems with dual guilding: 1) codewise, there are underlying issues to the setup that are causing problems, 2) culturally, characters have gotten unthematic with regards to guild crossings, 3) we believe that it's damaging to the guilds for characters to be split in their focus.""

[OOC] Kinky: "Thanks, I was just retyping that. :)"

[OOC] Tasker: "I said earlier, but points 2 and 3 could easily be sorted out IC'ly by the guildleaders."

[OOC] Reevolutionary: "Also this has been turned off and on at least once in the past 5 years, it happened shortly after I started playing again."

[OOC] Kinky: "But they're not being sorted out, so we have to."

[OOC] Tasker: "I wasn't aware it was even an issue"

[OOC] Temi: "But we'd really like to move towards a direction where guild membership is really meaningful and people are part of a strong organization where you have that to fall back on, but that there are a lot of great sorts of relationships that can be encouraged and built upon without guild membership"

[OOC] Zarryka assaults the non-thematic peeps for ruining her dualship.

[OOC] Temi: "We don't want guilds to necessarily be the only default way to do things, but is something that feels valuable and intrinsic to your character when they do make that choice."

[OOC] Whoinvis: "There was talk of an IC reason for removing inactives, but what's the reason for the one guild rule? Just so we know how to tackle this?"

[OOC] Kinky: "Do you know anyone doing three full time major professions at once? Of those you may have heard of, what % of the population is that?"

[OOC] Whoinvis: "Since it's across the board, I suggest an all encompassing reason, rather than individual GLs all suddenly having the same thought."

[OOC] Tasker: "I just don't see how this is going to improve anything, I've been putting things in the works to do exactly as you're saying Temi. Beyond the realms of the standard guild roles, and I don't see why duel-guilding needs to be removed to do that."

[OOC] Kinky: "ICly, it's because a person cannot actually carry the load of work of being a physician/knight or a merchant/policeman"

[OOC] Kinky: "In our experience, it's because people want to get their hands on guildskills too, not because they're genuinely interested in playing their 2nd guild."

[OOC] Temi: "It isn't the only way it can be done, but I don't see things having changed if we just held out another month before discussing it.  If you already had things in the works - great, they should still work."

[OOC] Tasker: "That's something I've been tackling IC'ly too, and so have the Physicians. In regards to the guildskills. I just see this making guild numbers even smaller now, we're struggling as it is to flesh out full rosters."

[OOC] Kinky: "I'm pretty sure the guilds will be fine. If they're not, we can revisit the question at a later date."

[OOC] Temi: "Writs should be able to grant access, and guilds are allowed to teach classes to non members in cases that they want to.  Welcome to license people, etc.  A lot of that can be done ICly now, and if there's ways the writ setup or anything needs improved, we're happy to improve that - I imagine with no cost during the adjustment period"

[OOC] Tasker: "I don't want to come off as a doomsayer, I hope it works out, but I'm just not seeing it. It just will lower guild numbers, if people have to choose only one. And we could do all that before, Temi, and it was being done to some degree. I'm just a bit disillusioned that this was put in without having any sort of discussion before hand, if the point was raised by only one player which it seems to be. "

[OOC] Kinky: "I think the guilds will be higher quality for all members as a result, even if they're smaller."

[OOC] Temi: "We did discuss all of these issues, and we knew that it would necessarily be popular amongst all, especially to start, and we didn't think it would help to listen to the concerns we already discussed and then feel ignored if we did it anyway."

[OOC] Starstarfish: "Except you get money and support based on membership, which sort of makes it feel like a contest for numbers, especially if low numbers mean staff consider closing the Guild. "

[OOC] Azarial: "These would be more realistic numbers for guilds, better reflecting their actual RP"

[OOC] Whoinvis: "Is closing guilds on the table currently?"


[OOC] Whoinvis: "I thought it wasn't...?"

[OOC] Kinky: "No, none of the current guilds are looking at closing."

[OOC] Tasker: "The manus was closed because of low membership."

[OOC] Zarryka: "It's just the sky falling."

[OOC] Zarryka: "As in the sky isn't falling, but Chicken little is going to be a chicken nugget at the end of the day."

[OOC] Kinky: "None of the current guilds are looking at closing."

[Temi]

Let me see if I can put together my response to the discussion.

This isn't coming out of nowhere and is an old topic that has been discussed among staff and with players before. We've heard arguments for and against it, and the issues we have been hearing about in this thread and on channels in the game are ones that we have heard before or discussed ourselves. After our discussion, we were pretty clear on where players would stand on the issue in general. We knew there would be people that would be happy, and there would definitely be some people that would be very vocally unhappy. We didn't feel like we would get any additional information out of an open forum, as the unknowns are pretty much how it would actually affect things, and to find that out we'll have to try it. We also knew what we wouldn't hear is the quieter feedback we've gotten from many players over the years. This would lead to what seems like staff making a decision counter to the loud discussion everyone heard, which arguably feels worse to people than staff saying 'Okay, we're going to try this.' We decided it was time to make the leap and see how it goes.

We think it will be good, even if there's some adjustment pain. Like Kinaed has mentioned, we're planning to keep a careful eye on it and it won't be irreversible if the longterm effects are not good. We do want to give it a chance to see how those go though.

And what are we trying to fix? In addition to ugly code which has caused numerous problems and Az would like to axe altogether, we have noticed and heard feedback that guilds are having problems. It's taken as a default state that everyone should be in two guilds and options for interaction with guilds other than as a member aren't even considered. Guildleaders have told us they don't like having people with split loyalties, but they feel like they are put in a bad situation to have to enforce it themselves against cultural expectations amongst the community. Players who are only in one guild have told us that they have been repetitively bothered that they ought to join another guild because they must be bored with just one guild. Guildmembers have told us that characters who joined their guild as liaisons or as a side hobby then show up as grandmasters while still RPing that it's just their sideline, deflating the impact of the first guildmember's focused work. Many treat guild selection as one choice for RP and one for the selection of extra guildskills that they want, rather than an impactful organization that they need to interact with.

We hope to work towards a state where guilds are important as organizations and defining choices, but they aren't the only defining choice for a character. Characters should have many different facets which create their personality, history and role, which should not be limited to guild jobs. And interactions with guilds should be deeper and more creative than just member or recipient of services. Guilds may be smaller, but everyone in them will be more involved and dedicated. We would certainly be glad to hear other ideas that might be working towards this goal, and we don't think this will be enough on its own, but we do think it's a step in that direction.

We know dual guilding has valid use cases, but we've told people that it shouldn't be the expectation, and culturally, it has gotten to that point. We think that the valid use cases can be worked around without being a member of the guild, and it is easier to fend off the other cases with something like this from staff. We also know that leaving grandfathered folks in might slow down the speed at which we get towards an ideal state, but it also reduces the sudden impact to characters that are living it now. By adding in the limits on promotions rather than just to new people adding, we think that people will make the choice to self-select to one guild as their characters progress and be able to do it at a time that makes sense for their characters. Those who aren't progressing anymore aren't really movers and shakers anymore, either. Over time, we think it will phase out, maybe to the point we can get rid of the code altogether. In the meantime, reduced use of the code will reduce the problems we see from it on the code side, in addition to the cultural shifts we hope to gain.

[Temi]

You currently cannot take a roster job if you are a member of any Guild. I'd argue allowing people to start doing so with GL permission would take care of a bit part of that. And would give new players a good way to build up report/RP. It would also allow Novice/Apprentice/Journeyman Merchants who take roster jobs appropriate to their skill area to have for RP purposes a set (v)NPC Master for RP purposes, etc. I think this would flesh things out a bit more, myself.

I wanted to call this out specifically, just in case I didn't miss a response on it. Those in covert guilds -can- still take roster jobs. This has always been intended as a place that Brotherhood, etc, could have cover jobs.