Posts made by Ghost

@Chet said in Vietnam War MUSH:

It was Wing Commander: Red Horizon's under-theme, for me, and I'd love to see a new one. Space: Above and Beyond, maybe, where you could play a USMC unit, fighting charlie, in the jungle?

Suggestion: Don't use racial slurs.

You might have had some people with "Space: Above and Beyond" but when you suggest a Vietnam War MU as a possible idea alongside fighting charlie (<---racial slur) you present an environment that would recreate the Vietnam War alongside the anti-Asian sentiment/prejudice simply by invoking the term "charlie".

There's no place for racism in Mu.

<groan>

Okay, enjoy your echo chamber.

@Ganymede said in The Game Game:

@Ghost said in The Game Game:

Popularity is not the reason.

Your attempt to distinguish "closing due to overpopularity" from "closing due to a lack of staff support" is yet another matter of semantics and attempt to move goalposts.

I didnt say "due to lack of staff support". I said "due to risks to quality of the existing game".

Can we get off this assumption that everything is about goals and/or goalposts? There was no "attempt" nor nefarious reasoning. It was a shared perspective, not that your own "you said it was about staff support" when I was talking about something different wasn't a "shifting on the goalposts" by itself.

This isn't an argument.

@Tinuviel said in The Game Game:

@Ganymede said in The Game Game:

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with the implications of what you are presenting as universal truths.

I need to keep a copy of this for any time @Ghost posts anything else.

Mildly constructive thread.

@Ganymede said in The Game Game:

This may be your definition of "competition," but it is not mine.

Hence why this conversation is a discussion and a sharing of opinions and not an election.

I think, too often, these conversations are taken as "who is right and who is wrong", but topics like "do games compete with each other?" is not a binary topic.

@krmbm said in The Game Game:

@Ghost said in The Game Game:

TBH I'm kinda getting the sense that some of this non-competitive talk is probably aversion to the word lest games OPENLY talk about competing with one another

Well, you're wrong.

@Tat shut her game to new players for months because it was too popular.

@bear_necessities and I have had many, MANY conversations about the frustration of being a place people play because it was the only place TO play for a while.

So you can "kinda get the sense" that we're just trying to look like bigger people on MSB than we actually are (which, honestly, why would we bother)... or you can accept that some people run games without wanting them to be the #1 place to play, just A place to play that people hopefully enjoy.

Allow me again to counterpoint.

No one would close off a game for being "too popular". Popularity is not the reason.

The reason a game would close its doors to new applications due to too many requests is because an influx in apps, population, or concepts would spread thin staff, bloat the game, risk of multitudes of non-quality players, and thus lower the quality to existing staffers and players. Everyone wants a thing to be popular and for people to be excited about it, but there comes a point where too much interest will affect the quality of the product.

I'd believe that the game being too popular was an applying factor in the reasons why the game closed off apps, but wasn't the true reason on the backend.

@Altair said in The Game Game:

I don't want people to humor me or force themselves to stay on my game if it isn't what they need or want. I want a playerbase who is on board for what I'm doing and the way in which I want to do it. If in this scenario, people are off on Arx and not populating my events, then I do not want to "do something so I can get them to stop being over there and drag them back to my game." Which is functionally what would have to happen. I would sooner keep running the game I want to run and then, if I missed playing with the absent people, go roll a character on Arx with them and enjoy some RP where I'm not an admin.

Counterpoint:

No ones saying to keep players on a game despite not having fun, nor them feeling stuck populating events on a game they dont enjoy. I've seen that happen; it's unendurable. Ugh.

Competition isnt about keeping people that aren't quality or aren't having fun/are absent. Competition is about wanting the game to have:

A) The best/active role players with as few drama problems as possible
B) More fun/events than other places to keep the momentum going

You cannot run a game without players, no matter how great you think your ideas are, if they're choosing to spend their time somewhere else. On some level to maintain whatever playspace you're paying for, you have to be a "draw".

TBH I'm kinda getting the sense that some of this non-competitive talk is probably aversion to the word lest games OPENLY talk about competing with one another, because I have heard plenty of competitive talk on staff channels and in private. I've seen staff wanting to boot problem players to competing games to strengthen their own playerbase draw, staff looking at other games for headcount, we've seen drive-by BBPOSTS of competing games on boards, etc. Theres a whole unspoken etiquette on how to make sure posting an advert (advertisement, key word here) for WoD game B on WoD game A's MU.

In fact, I'm willing to bet some people that are like "ohhhh it's no competition" aren't also secretly like "those fuckers are stealing my playerbase" but STATING it as a competition looks ugly next to people who say it isnt, so it happens on the quiet.

It's a thing you're supposed to say, but the reality is that all these WoD games have always been in competition with each other for time and attention, whether they chose to view it as a competition publicly, privately, or not.

@krmbm Really?

Not being rude here (so please don't read it in that voice), but are you saying a game owner/staff is fine with being "the backup" game and missing out on attendance on events to another game because they're just happy people are having fun?

If so, I think that's a very charming thing to say and be seen saying, but I have a hard time believing that any game that is aware that their events aren't being populated because people are so busy on Arx are like: "This is great."

I'm also gonna double down and say that in these situations staff start talking about ways to inspire people to populate their events despite other available options, which is no different than McDonalds bringing the McRib back when sales are low.

Because: it's competition

@Ganymede said in The Game Game:

I have literally never staffed or run a game where the main purpose was to become a player's main game.

Neither has anyone else.

Saying "each game WANTS to be a player's main game" is not the same as saying "the whole reason people open up, staff, and maintain games is to be the primary game".

No. People open these games because they want to make some creative/fun sandbox and it's boring if the other kids dont wanna play in it.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in The Game Game:

@Ghost

I can obviously only speak for myself but the one thing that tends to convince me to leave games isn't that the grass is greener somewhere else but that somewhere else might offer me an opportunity to actually get involved. That, to me, is the problem with most games that have run for a while -- they're impossibly hard to get into as a new player.

I have literally had a story teller on one game tell me not to bother. That the plot was far too complex and detailed to get into after the game had run for over a year. As a newbie I'd never be trusted and included. All but openly told me to not even bother to app.

It's obviously not the -only- reason a game may lose players to a similar game but it sure as heck is part of it. If only the core group of players really have much to do and feel entertained, then yes, everyone else is going to be looking for alternatives and rush over to that new green field.

Right, and there will be a myriad number of reasons to leave a game. I'm not saying that games being in competition has anything to do with poor decisions or that it's wrong for players to leave one game for another because the grass seems greener. This is the nature of seeking something, entertainment in this case, and the competition factor isnt at the player level.

What truly kills games? Low attendance/involvement making it so that the time/money spent to keep it going becomes less worthwhile.

We have seen...

• Players threaten to "steal players" to other games that are allegedly better
• Former staff taking code and opening up a new place in the same genre to "lure players" to their new game
• Games shut down because another game in the same genre opens up at the same time and population suffers for it.

What do games need to thrive? Player investment of time and effort. Time an effort is a finite resource.

So in the "not using pretty words" sense of things...

Competition isnt a bad word. Players dont want to waste their time and neither do staffers. Game selection/involvement is a matter of trying to determine if putting effort into a game is worthwhile, and staff of games has to capture that to keep the game going. This is done by trying to create an environment that makes players feel like it will be less worthwhile to focus on other games.

Arx has thrived because it is competitive. People are playing it because it's crafted something that people find rewarding that other games dont offer.

Simple as pie to me.

Of course there is competition.

Every MUer has seen a MU where players trickle away to other games in the same genre or staff on one game finds event participation to be low because the new game in the same genre is causing players to be "too busy" to play. It doesnt necessarily mean a player will abandon a game for the new game where the grass always seems greener, but it does mean that one game will suffer a sag in participation.

I think it's very polite to say that it isnt competition, but each game wants to be a player's MAIN game and the only way to secure that is to compete with other games.

@SquirrelTalk Teeeeeeeechnically if you're running Marvel/DC theres no frontal nudity, female nipples, all of it is obscured in shadow, and actual sex happens once every 45 issues or so.

Unless you're the Punisher.

A supers game following actual comics style kinda sounds fun.

FML while I'm supporting the Vampire Chapters kickstarter, CMON announces what is basically Marvel Comics Arcadia Quest.

Someone stop me.

For the first time I was looking at the legit "Force Academy" and thought...

oO(if it's affordable then I could actually sign my emails "Jedi Master"...)

Humblebragging is fucking annoying

To my knowledge, UH, 4T, and Empire State Heroes are the main comic book games out at the moment. Your choice may be fish.

@Kestrel said in Good or New Movies Review:

I don't care about the Oscars.

I don't care about celebrity culture.

But Joaquin Phoenix's speech is worth listening to and replaying 1000 times.

Transcript.

4 minute video.

God it was moving. I've always been a strong believer that peace, compassion, and love will always be a better course than to cancel each other out for past mistakes. Let's hope he reached more people with that.

@Auspice Disclaimer: I didnt say that in any way "hey that's how the game is played" but more "I bet that girl got brownie points for selling out on behalf of her own self interest."

@Auspice Bet she earned super big points with that guy.

@Seamus

-lt != -le