Aabahran: An Honest Critique of the Game I Love So Much

[Enethier]

Good morning.

I want to first take the time to clearly state that what follows is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY meant to trash talk the game, the staff, or the players. I have nothing but respect for each of you, and I would not have spent 8 years of my life on the administration of a game that I did (do) not enjoy. I am merely an honest believer in not sugar-coating the truth, even if it is difficult to accept. Critique is important. It shines a big flashing light on what we are doing wrong, and helps us find a better way to press forward. It is necessary for improvement. And who doesn't want to improve the game? This post will also be rather long-winded. Move over, Tantangel, I'm about to make you look like a rookie. If you are reading that, and getting annoyed already... this won't be the thread for you. May as well stop now. I will break it down in sections, at least, to make it easier to digest. A lot of this is coming from the top of my head, so it may not be organized as well as it could be. I'll probably end up beating a few dead horses, too. Sorry, not sorry.

 

The Game Mechanics:

Cabals:
The idea of a handful of static cabals is incredibly limiting. Furthermore, the inability for characters to shape the cabal politics in any permanent way makes it rather pointless beyond personal satisfaction. That can only go so far as a reward, though. While yes, it is a fantasy game, some level of realism is ideal for making the world immersive, believable, and compelling. Church is the only new cabal to come in since Merchant (which is just a subcabal at that). That means the upper echelon of tiered game sociopolitical interaction is static by design. No RPG should ever be this way in this sense. Yes, usually there is some core conflict in the background of many RPGs that drives two or more sides against each other. However, FL advertises itself as an open world that bends to the machinations of players through their efforts. In practice, though, it falls short of that. It is not as though "The game is what you as players make of it." Instead, it is "The game is what you as players make of it, so long as what you make of it does not change anything on more than a cosmetic level." To be blunt, that is horse shit. I've been doing the Church thing for a while, and yeah it is *definitely* not perfect. I spent the better half of six months just working out how to build the cabal structure in a way that doesn't crash the mud due to the limitations of the system. Information that was known by some of the other staff, but not shared until issues came up with the design. Knowing what I know now about them, though, I can safely and honestly say they are incredibly easy to do. Without the barrier of having no working knowledge on their design and limitations, it takes all of about 1-2 weeks to build one, minus the time for coding abilities. As such, it makes zero sense to me why the ones we have are so static, why it is not easier to create them (yes, I know we have factions, and yes I know that there are OLC limitations for the number of cabals... but we do have plenty of room, and there are many ways to integrate player-made cabals into the larger cabal system). Actually, lets run with that aside. Player-made cabals can exist as factions do now, with the notable exception of being cabals instead of factions. This is threefold. First, it allows for more interesting discussion between characters, who may notice a more public affiliation with an organization. Second, it limits the power-gaming of having major factions with special abilities or items in addition to having cabal stuff. I always hated that. There's no good reason for it. It's just another layer of power gap to make up for. Another edge to give people that ends up discouraging others from fighting them. Third, it actively encourages a more personal attachment to cabal duties and warfare. Most of the time, in the current system, you already know where you want to end up in terms of cabal before you even roll up the character. But rolling factions into cabals makes that decision more dynamic. It lives, breathes, and dies with the character. Circumstances suddenly have far more importance. New avenues of self-exploration are opened. 

Cabal Warfare:
I started playing the game back in 2009, 12 years ago. Even then, there were complaints about how boring cabal warfare (namely CTF) is. I have seen (and even authored) many ideas on how to improve the system. Most of them never see any feedback from the staff, or when they do receive feedback it is either an immediate shutdown or a vague promise of discussion with no follow up. It actually is a prime example of my biggest macro-level complaint about FL, which is the need for modernization. We are so far beyond other MUDs out there in terms of what we can do. Not because we don't have smart enough people, or creative enough people. But because we seem to have this incredibly frustrating sense of stubbornness when it comes to change and progress. The single worst argument to make against an idea is "But this is how it has always been" - like... yeah, of course it is, or else it wouldn't really be a change suggestion. That type of argument does nothing to discuss the actual merit of the suggestion.  When I saw a suggestion, I made absolutely sure to address any potential concerns with the merit of the change suggested. It may have made me look like an ass a lot of the time, because it is very easy to misconstrue that as trashing an idea, but as I stated many times, that was never the intent. Change is good, when it is properly and critically evaluated from all aspects imaginable.  Anyway, back to the actual subject. Cabal Warfare is stale. It is in this odd position of both being too slow to be meaningful, but also being too fast to be important. It is rather one-dimensional, and doesn't really have a measurable impact outside of some rather bland area-based bonuses. Actual strategy is non-existent. It's just about learning how the stack of functions is carried out, meaning the shortcuts along the lines of "issue new orders to the units you just defeated a bastion with in order to save a few ticks of time in fortifying and garrisoning." That's not depth. We deserve depth. I highly suggest we all have a meaningful discussion on just what it is we want to see in cabal warfare, and then make a system around that. A better system, even if it is decided that CTF remains.

Race/Class Restrictions:
Disallowing unusual combinations outright is just... strange. There are so many ways to make disincentives for combos that would otherwise be balance breaking. Most of the time, the staff does it anyway if they ever do decide to allow someone to play that combo. So why make that extra hurdle, when it can just be written into the game and allowed? Why is it that the staff must be gatekeepers? The idea of saying that a player is not "worthy" of something until they prove themselves through some arbitrary amount of time or other metric is quite honestly nothing besides an inflation of ego, in my eyes. Feel free to disagree, and I am sure most of the staff will. I sipped from that same cup for a time, I know it. Looking back, I am pretty ashamed of it. It's easy to get intoxicated on being the authority. How do you get more of that buzz? By making more things something that need your expressed permission. I get it. I don't like it, but I get it. However, this is a friggin' game. Staff should be doing things that make the game more fun, easier to get into, and that foster growth. As Raargant put it in a thread from many years ago, staff should be gardeners. I think the tendency has long been to lean more towards bouncers. I understand the reasonings and justifications, even if I feel some of them are exaggerated. We have had a lot of problem players in the past, and maybe the easiest solution at the time was to shift towards authoritarianism as a response. But that just creates an "us vs. them" that is ultimately bad for retention, expansion, and communication. That's not solely on the staff, either. There are plenty of instances where players take things personally that certainly are not. But come on, we are all adults. We should be able to act and think accordingly. Straying from the original topic is easy.... ahem. I see no reason that is valid from my perspective for why we don't have all race/class combinations available, and just impose penalties on the combinations that would be too strong, and bonuses on combos that might be too weak. I mean, we tested those waters on gnome thieves, and that never resulted in Armageddon. I personally challenge anyone to come up with a race/class combo that I can not at least give an approximation for how to balance through static penalties/bonuses. Is it more work to do it that way? Absolutely. But the easy way is very seldom the correct way.

Guild Quests:
They give too much. Yeah, I know that's something being discussed currently, but in my tenure I saw a lot of things that were discussed, never implemented, and then forgotten about or abandoned. So I wanted to touch on it again. These quests trivialize CP. Newbies, who these quests were arguably designed to benefit by showing them key mobs and routes, actually get less benefit from them than vets do. How? Because vets can do exponentially more per hour, which ties directly into the amount of reward gained per hour, which further increases the gap in power. By severely lowering the reward, it keeps that important purpose of showing the game world to new players while hampering the gains of players that abuse (yes, that is my honest opinion, that it is willing abuse) the reward system. We could even go so far as to make a system that is similar to journeyman. New player? You get a flag that increases the gains from quests by a substantial amount, which incentivizes you to complete them, which rewards you with information. Not a new player? Well, you can use them as is for experience, or you can be required to do vastly more just maintain the CP/hour you've become accustomed to. 



OLC:

I was going to put this under Game Mechanics, but I honestly feel like this subject is expansive and problematic enough to be its own section.

Limitations:
OLC has a lot of limitations that are the result of falling behind in the times. We still use bitvector assignment instead of togglable flags in **many** places, for instance. OLC should be limited by the builder's imagination (or security privileges), not by the game simply having an outdated engine. I ran into this problem with Church. I wanted truly customizable equipment. However, because bitvectors are used for a good chunk of item fields, most notably flags like flaming and sharp, I would have had to have coded roughly 5-10 million lines of OLC just to allow for all of the possibilities. Cabal mobs (and some other special mobs) use their mana values instead of having their roles assigned via a flag, like trainers and guildmasters). AC is still done in inverse numbers. Room progs can crash the game. Objects can crash the game if they edit themselves. For the longest time, adding color to rooms was near impossible to figure out, because the room names were wrapped in their own color code based on sectors, which overrode anything you put in yourself. 

Lack of Autonomy:
This one's a bit more personal, but when I was on staff, I found it very hard to get anything pushed through for OLC changes. And this is not to say "so and so is stubborn" or "so and so refuses to <blank>". It's not a witch hunt, nor an invitation to speculate on specifics. What the frustration was, for me, was feeling like what was supposed to be my purview was routinely made not my purview. There's no set process for it, rather it changes with each topic. Sometimes, like with Church, it was real simple to get the go-ahead. "Lol Lloth go burr", basically. Which was a huge project with massive ramifications for PK and RP. Awesome! And yet, other projects with a far smaller scope in terms of impact were flat out rejected as a whole over cosmetic disagreements. That's not really limited to OLC, as it is an issue with the entire behind-the-scenes, but I found it most prevalent in my immediate duties. There's incredibly little structure. I am not trying to insult the staff with this, either. I think they do great jobs, most of the time, with what we have. And true, it is more difficult to design a rigid system with the rotating door of staff and how they like to do things... but... until I left the staff, we had not had a change in the implementer roles in like 6-7 years. I was basically thrust into Head Builder before I even made the Lloth account. That's 6-7 years to come up with a system that is set in stone, regardless of any other circumstances. We failed. Yes, myself included. I had only put structure into the build team (or even had a build team) about a year ago. What I am driving at here is that the sections of the staff have very little autonomy. Sections are not allowed to make decisions for themselves. This leads to a massive backlog of changes, requests, and tasks so large that most of them end up being kicked down the road indefinitely, dropped completely, or flat-out forgotten about. The game may be volunteer staff doing what they can, but there needs to be a mindset to how it's executed that is efficient and fair.

Lack of a True Beta System:
How many areas over the last decade, specifically end game areas, have been released, only to later receive substantial nerfs, bug fixes, or mechanics changes? Having a beta system, open or closed, that does not depend entirely upon the build team testing their own products (which is not helpful, as you want people with no knowledge of the project to be the ones testing the project) would eliminate a vast majority of these issues. It is also a hype magnet. But we don't have one, for some strange reason. 




I'm sure there's more but I've kinda forgotten. So I will add to this as necessary.



 

[egreir]

Lloth go burrr

[Saisha]

While I do not understand much of what is said about OLC or behind the scenes and coding, the overall picture behind the post was very informative.  And, I think, coming from someone who recently stepped down from staff speaks volumes in and of itself.

Thank you.  Thank you for your words.  Thank you for the time you put in.  I truly believe there is much that needs to be changed and FL can be amazing.  As times change, so should the games.  However, despite the fact that I was gone for 10-15 years, I was surprised at how easily it was to REMEMBER much of the same things that were in place when I left.  

Small area changes, small skill changes, small changes here and there.  But ultimately, FL as a whole game, has NOT changed.   While I have been gone for so long, I have a renewal of desire to play.  But for those who have played almost continuously this entire time, with no real ability to AFFECT change, or make any impact beyond the "Getting a tome published about them" there is a stagnation and a boredom.  

Do not get me wrong.  I LOVE FL.  I have and will, even if I fade once again.  However, I have to agree ( I was recently shown Raargarant's post) with what HE said and what is being said here.  

Now, HOW can we affect this change?  HOW can WE as the players HELP.  How can WE as the COMMUNITY help?  What would be needed?  A complete overhaul?  I do not know any of those answers but I would be willing to help in any way necessary.  I think when enough people cry out for change, it needs to be taken seriously and actually looked at rather than put off and off and off.  Over and over.

Lets MAKE FL GREAT AGAIN!

[Cephirus]

I appreciate your insight and think you have very valid points that I as a member of the player community consider very important. I think you absolutely have hit the nail on the head with the point about stagnation in the game. The new area content has been an exciting addition, but I think you are onto something regarding cabals and needing an overhaul on the design. The power gaps are very real and having been on both sides, it is frustrating. When you are the one struggling to make headway against opponents the advice given is to put in more time (to basically get a higher rank in your cabal), which honestly I find extremely problematic for the size of our playerbase. It is a very fun thing when you are fighting someone on a similar power level and there is lots of back and forth, however when there is a L/E and the opposing cabal only has inductee's, its a HUGE uphill battle. You can see the progress over the month as those inductee's quickly get weeded out, for one reason or another (in my opinion, most of them decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze they feel as they are steamrolled over and over again). Maybe one or two make it to T and then they may decide they have had enough. I don't think a change to the timers for cabal progression is the answer to this.

If we break the game down into four power levels,

1= Level 1-49

2= 50 uncabaled/unfactioned(non-royal/noble)

3= Inductee-Member

4= Veteran

5= Trusted-Leader

 

There are certainly arguments to be made for adjusting these power levels, but I just wanted to make a quick breakdown to use as an example. Generally all characters will achieve reaching a level 2 power level character. The problem is that at that power level, they are unlikely (there are plenty of examples of otherwise, but I think those are outliers) to stand much of a chance against a power level 5. So they can either make a good showing of it, likely taking a death, or going the avoidance route, which typically only lasts so long against a persistent enemy unless you log out. My fear is that the majority log out, and/or take a couple of deaths and eventually just delete, before even getting to 4 or 5.

I think with our small playerbase, it doesn't make sense to have as many power tiers, as you end up with only one or two characters in the upper tiers, with the rest at a 2 or 3. We want players to stick around with their characters and them to have a long playtime/life, the game is designed around that type of play. However, I think the reality is that the community no longer is interested in such a protracted investment/return model. The playerbase numbers are the biggest indicator of this fact. Why invest a month of playing (on average) one hour a day, when I can play a multitude of other online interactive games and see my investment of time realized in a much shorter stretch? I think we need to find an agreeable middle-ground where we are still incentivizing players sticking with a character and them having a long life, but also allowing a player to find enjoyment in having a shorter life that makes "breaking into" the game an easier experience.