Physicians oppose Infrastructure?

Ideas we've discussed and decided not to implement.
User avatar
Buzz K[ir]ill
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:42 pm

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:15 pm

Probably, things feel/are a bit unbalanced because the consequences for low metrics aren't the same across all metrics. They all work slightly differently, with some being arguably worse for certain guilds than others.

In the case of the Merchants, low class relations probably seems a lot worse than low health or low morale, since class relations can directly affect individual Merchants' ability to buy the goods they need to ply their trade. Class relations has tanked in recent weeks, so this is being felt pretty keenly right now, I'd imagine.

The shopkeep restrictions only kick in at a certain point. Anything before that might just be seen as extra income -- a silver lining to less-than-ideal class relations. But once the metric hits that point where people can't buy stuff as usual, it's perhaps no longer in the Merchants' collective interests to actively subvert (or simply ignore) plummeting class relations. Then again, it's probably not in many people's best interests at that point. Race relations functions similarly, but other metrics operate on more of a gradient, where things are less black and white.

There are ways to deal with nearly all of the "negatives" that occur with low metrics, but the solutions, like the drawbacks themselves, are not equal and are often exacerbated by low player counts. I wonder if the second metrics could be shifted around a bit so that consequences for low metrics are perceived as better aligned for the various guilds?

At the same time, no one is OOCly forcing anyone to subvert the second metric. At most, you only get one choice per cycle, so if you want to prioritize your guild's interests, you could always choose the positive metric. If your guild's positive metric is maxed out, you could choose one that aligns with your personal assets, or helps out your sister guild, etc. I see this system as simply introducing more options, and with that, more potential conflicts of interest. At the end of the day/cycle, the only folks who even get to choose are those who can actually participate in the system, and those folks can only impact one metric at a time anyway.

For me, it's the conflicts of interest that make the system even remotely interesting. They can sort out many different ways, depending on one's class, race, and profession. I have no problem playing characters who operate in their own selfish interests 90% of the time, but I also realize that the system as a whole puts guildleaders in a tough spot and adds to their stresses -- piled onto the rest of a GLs responsibilities, dealing with conflicting metrics/gameplay may just feel like an added burden.

2018 Cookery Contest Winner!
2018 Cookery Contest Winner!
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:13 am
Discord Handle: Starstarfish#4572

Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:50 pm

A lot of these issues can be solved by removing the promote / invert aspect of metrics and moving to something to improve player retention - like metric scores based on the active populations of guilds.
Guilds already receive money based on active numbers, however, given this is a game that allows alts I don't think that putting more emphasis on chars per Guild produces positive results overall. It can also encourage actively recruiting people into Guilds more for benefit to the Guild than supporting their char concept.

User avatar
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:24 pm

Hello! Just dropping in to make a few comments and answer some questions posted earlier from the staff point of view:

Q: Does preventing new players from purchasing basics like tools for their trade and resources cause a problem?
A: Players are not prevented, there's just a change in pattern of behavior required. Prior, the pattern was to go to a store and buy something. Now, the pattern is to ask someone else to help, which is what we call an RP touch point. These are generally beneficial for the game. What is not beneficial is the idea that everything a person wants to achieve should be able to be done by them alone, all the time, with no assistance. On an RP game, social connections and reasons for people to build them are so important, particularly for new players. So, in short, this one is easy to solve, in a positive way.

Q: Does limiting the grid and preventing players from interacting with each other via different cultural districts cause a barrier to roleplay?
A: Most areas of the game are not restricted, and for those that are - we've had these barriers for a long time, regardless of metrics (Southside, the Bluebird, the Palace, etc). These barriers are weighed against the value of providing people with specialized, thematic RP. Sometimes people want to be open, in which case they'll choose to RP in a non-specialized area. In others, their choice is not going to change to include RPing with people in circumstances they didn't want to anyway. Overall, we feel providing these specific barriers, to the general degree that we do (as most of the game is unrestricted), is the best mix for TI on the whole.

Q: Should players have to chose between being tired all the time or not being allowed in certain parts of the city?
A: Yes and no. This is one possibility of what is at stake, and Staff view this as a "meaningful decision"... but equally, players can choose not to engage in this decision and work together to create a path they prefer - of course, there's a lot of conflicting interests out there, so that's something to navigate. That said, we think having to choose something over something that has an impact is, in general, a good idea.

Q: Should metrics be zero-sum?
A: Yes, game systems that are accumulative usually become unbalanced, then there's a never-ending cycle of tweaking for balance. This system is zero sum for that reason, with a bonus system in the form of noble projects to act as a 'pressure release' and give nobles special abilities and prestige in game.

Q: Do we need guilds to invert a metric? Why?
A: Yes, for several reasons. First, it prevents a holding pattern and stagnation in the system when we have different, shifting interests at play by ensuring there is no 'one true way' to 'beat the system'. Second, no one or group can be a 'paragon' for representing only the positives. Finally, and most importantly, additional considerations in the metrics introduces unavoidable conflicting interests and gives people things to RP about.

Other players have raised that it's stressful being a GL. Alas, that's probably true for some people more than others. We have some people who take to the role with gusto, and others who spend a lot of time in hell wondering how they got there. This is very personal for different GLs, and it's both subjective and hard to pinpoint whether the stressors are fair enough or unreasonable. So, at this point in time, Staff are taking a 'we just made this change, let's monitor it and see' approach to understanding how GL stress is going to pan out.


User avatar
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:32 am

Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:03 pm

What I know is that more than half the game within the City walls is closed off to me, and I still don't codedly get the benefits that I'm being discriminated against for. If you guys want to monitor this "situation," that's fine.
Personally, however, I'd like to raise my hand and say that I think it's a horrible and meaningless system for something that can just as easily be done by devoted players.
Rothgar Astartes, Fyurii Rynnya, Nils 'Smith' Mattias, Edward Darson, Curos Arents.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests