Gwyn

Rite Journal Goal: Question for the Devs

Recommended Posts

Why have you still not removed or jerk-proofed the rite journal goal? Time and again, rites have been sniped from those of us trying to organize group casts for everyone's benefit. Time and again, this sniping has been pointed out and alternative goal mechanics have been suggested. 

 

So ...

 

Why do you continue to heavily reward PvP-style sniping and punish PvE-style cooperation among PvE players? To put it bluntly, from a player's perspective this is starting to feel like a mindf*ck.

 

This is not a suggestion thread; we have plenty of those already. Please limit discussion to answering these questions. Non-devs, feel free to offer your own theories about the rationale at play here. First post below reserved for summary of answers and/or theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Answers offered so far by non-devs:

 

Snoo, Wonka: It is too difficult to change.

Wargasm: The goal is competitive by design.

Goldfever: There is no problem in the goal itself.

Edited by Gwyn
Update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Gwyn said:

Why have you still not removed or jerk-proofed the rite journal goal?

 

Isn't this very hard to actually do? Since several groups could be trying to do the goal, and it's a limited cast so I think that a contest is inevitable.

Edited by Sn00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sn00 said:

 

Isn't this very hard to actually do? Since several groups could be trying to do the goal, and it's a limited cast so I think that a contest is inevitable.

 

It is to some extend, but factoring in personal contribution to charging the goal would alleviate this a lot, and the idea I had proposed for that is rather simple and straightforward. But as Gwyn said - not a suggestion thread. It is also not hard to remove or change up the journal goal to something that cannot be effectively stolen from you. I do like the idea of an incentive to do these casts regularly though, and more often, because it benefits all followers greatly.

 

It's a shame though that this incentive is hamfisted into a rat race goal with charging mechanics that degrade Wurm even more into a button clicking simulator than it already is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while the goal idea is good (i have 3 priest that needs it)... both the charging design (flat amount on a dwingling server population) and the casting one deserve to be fixed. When a group works together to make the cast possible and it's ninjaed by the same people over and over again for their own (or not) gains, something needs to be done. Either change the goal or punish the repeted offenders... or make it a punishable offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Flubb said:

It is to some extend, but factoring in personal contribution to charging the goal would alleviate this a lot, and the idea I had proposed for that is rather simple and straightforward.

Can you please link it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Odynn said:

while the goal idea is good (i have 3 priest that needs it)... both the charging design (flat amount on a dwingling server population) and the casting one deserve to be fixed. When a group works together to make the cast possible and it's ninjaed by the same people over and over again for their own (or not) gains, something needs to be done. Either change the goal or punish the repeted offenders... or make it a punishable offense. 

 

As an uninvolved third-party, the audacity of this request is positively hilarious to me.

Edited by Delacroix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anarres said:

Can you please link it?

 

It was a one-off comment on a thread, not its own suggestion, so kind of hard to find as I don't exactly remember where. On of the threads that were sparked when the goals came out. I might post it again as a suggestion thread if desired, but I feel like it'll just land on deaf ears, especially in light of the now reignited drama and following threads over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Odynn said:

[...] or punish the repeted offenders... or make it a punishable offense.

 

Calling for punishment is only fueling the divisive fires. As much shade as I throw myself, I can't bring myself to want to see such punitive, counterproductive measures be put in place - not when it punishes behaviour encouraged by a bad system. Yes, I think today's cast was selfish and the lack of attempt on cooperation was appalling. But I'd be a hypocrite to not acknowledge the anxiety and bad decisions that can come with the current mechanisms. Perhaps it was entirely in bad faith, perhaps this anxiety played a factor...but going forward, calling for the heads of other players rather than a change that will make cooperation an actual "down to earth" option and not a virtuous endeavor is ultimately destructive. Especially to the already small playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To emphasize that: Yes, the blame is with the devs, and they are the ones to sort it as they created the mess (you all know how high I usually value the efforts of the dev team and oppose any dev bashing, but in this case, sorry).

 

In operating system, data base, and even application programming, race conditions of different agents wanting and trying to access the same shared resource are commonplace. They are routinely dealt with by prioritizing by creating e.g. access queues, locks, mutex, and other means ensuring fair and effective use of shared resources, avoiding clashes and congestions. The way that journal goal has been designed is simply unprofessional, at least for PvE.

 

In PvP, the conflicts might possibly be solved by force and fighting by the players, at least as far as that would be possible which still is doubtful (I doubt that enough praying followers or priests are up on PvP servers though, and do not know the situation there). In PvE, complaints to the GM are mostly ineffective, and the whole situation is frustrating and divisive, nothing else.

 

It cannot be ok to create such a source of conflicts out of the blue. The devs should rethink the design of that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Flubb said:

...the lack of attempt on cooperation was appalling.

 

According to a post in another thread, the person in question who did it actually asked people if they wanted in on it, and were basically told to piss off.

Edited by Delacroix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Delacroix said:

 

and were basically told to piss off.

 

And that last part is just genuinely false. I have a pretty good idea which thread you mean because I responded thoroughly to that allegation with what I actually said.

First it was "They're not welcome", now appearantly I told them to "piss off". It's like some screwed up game of phone where the goal is to smear me. This notion seems to persist so despite my attempts to not namedrop them or try to fan some outrage fire against anyone (but the devs, who are the only ones who deserve it), I'll have to post some publicly available knowledge - as it was clear for everyone to read in kchat. I "censored" the casters name out.

 

Spoiler

[14:19:21]  [Caster] looks like Holy Crop is ready.  I've got a 99 channeling Fo priest with max faith, so we could chain a bunch together and get the journal bonus for up to 10 guys.
[14:19:36] <Elwood> located where?
[14:19:46] [Caster] I'm up near Vrock but again, max faith so I can summon
[14:19:48] <Amath> Folks are already on it
[14:19:54] <Elwood> let me log into my alt
[14:20:00] <Elwood> 84 faith, fo.
[14:20:05] [Caster] well can I get my priest in on it, Amath?
[14:20:31] <Amath> [09:24:04] <Flubb> Just a heads up that Holy Crop is ready to be cast and I'm planning to cast it with 9 other people for the journal goal. Still pinning down a time but aiming for today 8pm CET
[14:20:34] <Amath> Not me
[14:20:37] <Amath> ^
[14:20:55] <Amath> we got a heads up on this ealier, that was 9 AM CET
[14:21:05] <Umabrisk> got a   statuette for me ? i need to suicide back after\
[14:21:10] <Umabrisk> <-- Elwood
[14:21:30] <Amath> I would suggest to talk to them
[14:21:39] <Shamank> flubb is doing elwood
[14:22:31] <Shamank> take 2 for woody [17:24:03] <Flubb> Just a heads up that Holy Crop is ready to be cast and I'm planning to cast it with 9 other people for the journal goal. Still pinning down a time but aiming for to
[14:22:47] <Shamank> 8 cet*
[14:23:13] <Amath> I think that's ... in 3:30 h from now? something like that
[14:26:29] <Flubbear> more like 5:30. But we'd want to do it earlier if the people planned to participate respond sooner
[14:26:46] [Caster] are all your spots taken already?
[14:27:02] <Flubb> unfortunately yes, it's 10 people also
[14:27:30] <Flubb>

is where I try to organize it, so that it's not down to being lucky for being on.
[14:31:28] <Flubb> the next "round" has 6 slots open though, and I'm not sure there is a priest in that backlog with enough channelling yet to maximize links, so that'd be excellent

 

I basically openly invited them to participate in the next cast and even said how they'd be a benefit to this endeavour.

Nothing after that, except the cast.

You know, I'm not even that mad on them. No more than anyone else who sniped before for their own gain. It's the shitty system in place that has us pitched agaisnt eachother like that. Whatever blame I'd want to throw at them, at least half has to be redirected to the system, and by extension, the developers.

But being antagonised like that in this stupid aftermath is genuinely aggravating me right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 8:12 PM, Delacroix said:

As an uninvolved third-party, the audacity of this request is positively hilarious to me.

 

As someone who have seen the RoS casts being ninjaed for years by Yellowfinger while the staff did nothing because it was "allowed" and let the situation degrade to non existant public casts, no more cooperations between players for said casts and ultimately poorly made changes on said global spells, the audacity of the request is not so hilarious.

 

You have two possibilities... either hard code things, like Rolf tried to do with 25 players in local (which never worked and was discarded)... or hold people accountable for what they do... specially if the intent is to cause harm.

 

The suggestion of having a 24 hours window to allow anyone to cast the spell again might be a good answer if the toxic behavior of some doesn't fall anymore against the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Odynn said:

The suggestion of having a 24 hours window to allow anyone to cast the spell again might be a good answer if the toxic behavior of some doesn't fall anymore against the rules.

 

I agree that the GM have leverage to punish outstandingly unconstructive conduct. This may apply to the first case of sniping. It does not to the most recent one, where a competing group grabbed the rite, even though that was unfair conduct. In fact, the prayer pool is not "owned" by anybody, which was never a major problem until the Benediction goal to my knowledge.

 

And indeed, Gwyn's proposal is a sound idea which may not only defuse the conflicts but also remove the congestion created by the journal goal relatively fast. After that, global spell will probably return to their previous fairly sleepy stage.

 

Edited by Ekcin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we start a 4th thread about this.... to suggest the journal entry be changed to casting bless on an altar?  So everyone will get it done on day 1, just like all these ridiculous proposals?

 

This "quest" was designed with the demand and competition in mind.  Much like the Devs decided they want you to close so many rifts for your journal, not just one..... because they know it's going to take awhile. 

Wouldn't it be easy to get your Rite of Death cast if you were the ONLY Libila priest on freedom?

 

The "PvP" aspect of this, as you call it, is no different than the staff's indifference toward Yellowfinger and all the RoS casts he has stolen over the years...they did nothing about it then, and they aren't obliged to do anything about it now.

 

unknown.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wargasm, your strawmanning is getting tiresome. No one is arguing for easiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would appreciate if that thread would not deteriorate into polemics. I agree that comparing to a bless is over the top. Yet the proposal of indefinite global casts within 24h indeed carries the risk that all or nearly all priests wanting to accomplish the goal could do it inside one single favour pool which would indeed be some kind of dumbing down. An alternative would be limiting the number of Benediction goals which could be achieved during one favour pool. Even if that is 10 only it would still help to reduce the jam and sniping would be pointless for it too.

 

The obvious abuse by that certain player is indeed another matter and worrisome. I am not deep enough into priest stuff to understand what kind of advantage that player wins that way. And I agree that the GM should do something about and should long have done, independent from Benediction.

Edited by Ekcin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is a difficult issue but us pve types are going to have to adapt somewhat.  The fact is that if a spell is up, it is going to get cast. Don't wait around and don't plan to wait around. I am not familiar with yesterday's "drama". I don't know who "caster" is and I don't really care either as in my view it makes no difference. From the conversation given in this thread there is a clear lack of understanding that on-line people need to be respected.  I fully support pve cooperative play but it has to be done within reason.

 

Here is my suggestion to resolve that I think would work and get everyone in on a cast sooner or later who wants one and avoid a lot of drama.

 

1. No reserved spots on the "list".

2. If you want on the "list", be prepared to provide rl contact information.

3. People online and ready/wanting to cast always have priority to people offline regardless of if they are even on the "list".

4. if not enough interest from those on-line to fill up the spots then a call goes out to say the top 10 names on the list (if that is possible, if not, too bad).  Wait a little bit (30m? 1 hour?) and cast. First come first served for those logging in who want to join. In summary, treat the "list" as a stand-by que, not an assigned seat.

 

For the record I'm not on the list and decided against joining the list as I don't want the hassle.  From the information presented in this thread I think "caster" acted fairly and appropriately given the situation.  He tried to form a group to cast, was told he couldn't cast this cycle and so he demonstrated otherwise. It is not wise to presume to tell on-line people they can't join/form a group to cast--particularly if they have chosen to not participate in or didn't know about some "list".

 

The situation that occurred was to be expected in my view.  What is unfortunate is that it could have so easily been avoided and many people who needed a cast could have gotten one if only the priority of on-line people had been respected.

 

Edit: To directly address the OP's question, my comment would be there is no real issue to fix re goals. I believe the question is poorly framed.  it is not a question of pvp or pve but in how pve has attempted to organize as I've outlined above.

 

 

Edited by GoldFever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem though, you have to be there at the exact right moment or sol which is bad design. Its not a matter of work harder you could be the one charging it all the time for others and still never get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I understand the contention with how this is being dealt with, and I'd have no problem with the cast if the caster said "I disagree with this, get on or I'll do it without you", which would at least have given the 3 people online on the roster (not counting myself) a chance to participate to at least clear some spots and is, from how the current system is setup, pretty uncontentious. They knew I was going to wait for a few more hours anyway, not to "plan around" but to wait for the people who signed up and I kinda don't want to backstab, you know? So there was no need to rush it like that. But they went completely guerilla cast on this, and it's doubtful they had 10 people in such short notice, so to call them an "equal competing group" is a stretch for me. They basically reverted to a rogue cast, a snipe, despite best intentions. Happened to me around the first time, too, not gonna lie, and there wasn't even anyone else planning to cast as far as I'm aware. But I find it safe to say they went back on their intention to make this an "organized cast" to fulfill their own needs only, and if they want to come out and say how many links they had, I will retract this conjecture. This is based on my experience with the first cast, though, so it's not without some empirical backing.

You'd think one could deal with this like an adult and discuss this, but that was appearantly not an option. That's like 99% of what I found so appalling. And now people pretend like both "groups" were "basically coming from the same place". That view lacks nuance and in practice, what they did was nothing like what was planned.

 

But even if we did try to make a "fully stocked" global cast everytime, I'm rather pessimistic about this giving everyone, in every timezone, with every possible personal life schedule, a fair shot at participating. Not with the system as it is. So the list, as petty as it seems without further introspection, is an attempt to work around the unreasonable demands of this system, not cower to it. Why is respect only owed to people online? Do they stop existing for you when they log off?

 

 

7 hours ago, Wargasm said:

This "quest" was designed with the demand and competition in mind.  Much like the Devs decided they want you to close so many rifts for your journal, not just one

 

Every goal has a "demand" for something, but there's absolutely no "competition" in Freedom rifts, it's quite the opposite. You're grasping at straws to make a fallacious "pro status quo" argument. Guys on Chaos and Epic can bash eachothers head in over this - quite literally.  But on Freedom, there's no recourse from this other than changing the system up or invoking GM intervention, the latter of which I disagree with on grounds of inconsistency. You don't have a system that encourages bad behaviour only and punish people for indulging in it.

 

It's not just sleep bonus that people miss out on now, like they did during Yellowfingers sniping spree, but now it's also the goal that people would need once, and when they're done, the snipers can start taking the credit and glory all over again with no real harm done. Because now there's a 24 hour window to claim the reward so in that regard, it doesn't matter who casts or when. So by that line of thinking, Gwyn's suggestion for recasting Rites makes a lot of sense to alleviate the friction points. It worked for the rewards at least.

 

Edited by Flubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GoldFever said:

To directly address the OP's question, my comment would be there is no real issue to fix re goals. I believe the question is poorly framed.  it is not a question of pvp or pve but in how pve has attempted to organize as I've outlined above.

 

Under the current system, a player's efforts (prayers to charge favour pool) are public domain. Think about that for a second: the fruits of players' efforts are up for grabs by other players. And by publicly trying to share these fruits with the community (via announced pre-planned casts), they make it extremely probable that a self-interested minority will reap them for themselves. Sorry, but if that's not a description of PvP play I don't know what is. It's completely at odds with the ethos of PvE (where, for example, stealing is prohibited and land can be safe-guarded by deeding). I mean, PvP's fine if you're into that kind of thing, but I'm not. Exclusionary play – where my success means someone else's failure, frustration, or exclusion – gives me no pleasure whatsoever, and I resent being pushed into it in a gaming environment that is nominally PvE, which is what I signed up for three years ago.

 

So as for your suggestions, well, they don't address this underlying issue. Regardless of how group casts are organized, players still have no guarantees of ever getting a chance to participate in a rite; in fact, their chances would go down as everything would depend on the dumb luck of being online at the right time. Nor do they have any protections from other players if they decide to take on the mammoth effort of charging the pool single-handedly (see Flubb's recent experiences on Xanadu).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated the first post with summarised answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that the ability to pray to get the sleep bonus, and characteristic gain, within 24hours for the cast was added as a band-aid to address the issue associated with the rite spells being repeatedly snipped.

 

That band-aid only addresses the sleep bonus/characteristic gain, as they were the only benefit at that time. Now, there is the bigger benefit associated with being involved in the cast of a rite spell, as a step to completion of the Benediction Journal entry, and getting associated benefit of +5 power to spell casts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to see a straightforward solution to this, without either making the goal so easy it's trivial (everyone can re-cast for journal within 24 hours), or basically promoting exclusionary play in other ways (must contribute X prayers to be able to cast).  Also, practically, a solution that doesn't require a massive rewrite of how spells work is more likely to be implemented.  If you've seen/made suggestions that don't fall into one of these holes, do link them.  If asking nicely doesn't effect dev change, then passive-aggressive complaints about how the devs obviously don't care at all probably won't help either, just sayin'.

 

Maybe only allowing a particular cast per character every 6 months?  Still seems a bit clunky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wonka said:

If asking nicely doesn't effect dev change, then passive-aggressive complaints about how the devs obviously don't care at all probably won't help either, just sayin'.

 

That's how Epic got its reset though. 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now