Sign in to follow this  
Gwyn

Rite Journal Goal: Question for the Devs

Recommended Posts

15 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'.

 

Yeah, just saying it badly. Passive aggression this ain't, compadre — quite the opposite. I wouldn't use that term myself, but since you let that particular cat out of its bag, if anything it would apply to the devs' refusal to engage and non-answers regarding this issue every time it comes up. So why wouldn't I use the term against the devs? Because I know I'm not entitled to any answers; they're not beholden to me or any other players. Call this thread uncomfortable, call it face-threatening, call it insubordinate (lol!), but there's nothing passive about me and others stating our displeasure openly and seeking answers by asking direct questions. The devs have done a fantastic job with this game in many ways – that's why we're all still here. Credit where credit is due; criticism where criticism is due. Or do you advocate only ever saying nice things?

 

I genuinely do want to understand the developmental inertia in this area. These aren't complaints about 'how the devs obviously don't care at all', but questions 'why is nothing being done?' Make a little effort to appreciate the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flubb said:

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.

 

 

Well, yes, that would have been nice but would take a real "saint" to do so after being told "no".  Not reasonable to expect it.

 

5 hours ago, Gwyn said:

 

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).

 

Do you raise a valid point here.  The only possible solution though is to remove the bottleneck entirely in some manner--which makes the goal itself pointless as there are already plenty of "single player" type goals.

 

In my view, the list itself (as currently structured) is also a form of pvp play (which is a big part of the reason I choose not to participate in it). We have a clear case here of the "caster" being told to either get on board someone else's train or to just forget about meeting that goal. I tried to offer a solution that recognizes pve cooperation (and gives offline players a shot at logging on) without the inherent "control" of other players actions/game play that comes from the pvp side of things.  I fully recognize that It is a fine line and hard to know where to draw it.  

Edited by GoldFever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gwyn said:

 

Yeah, just saying it badly. Passive aggression this ain't, compadre — quite the opposite. I wouldn't use that term myself, but since you let that particular cat out of its bag, if anything it would apply to the devs' refusal to engage and non-answers regarding this issue every time it comes up. So why wouldn't I use the term against the devs? Because I know I'm not entitled to any answers; they're not beholden to me or any other players. Call this thread uncomfortable, call it face-threatening, call it insubordinate (lol!), but there's nothing passive about me and others stating our displeasure openly and seeking answers by asking direct questions. The devs have done a fantastic job with this game in many ways – that's why we're all still here. Credit where credit is due; criticism where criticism is due. Or do you advocate only ever saying nice things?

 

I genuinely do want to understand the developmental inertia in this area. These aren't complaints about 'how the devs obviously don't care at all', but questions 'why is nothing being done?' Make a little effort to appreciate the difference. 

 

I have no dog in this race - I don't have a priest, and don't plan to.  The question you're asking is less 'what are you doing' and more 'why aren't you telling us anything', which is kinda fair enough.  I don't find this thread uncomfortable, but I also don't think it's likely to get much response from devs, beyond perhaps 'we're working on it' from everyone's favourite whipping boy PR rep.  For me, I suspect this is a really hard problem to solve, without either completely devaluing the achivement or screwing it completely (possibly for one group or another), so I can see how the devs are reluctant to just go ahead and change something.

 

Clearly, the current situation isn't good, but I can think of so many knee-jerk changes that could make it so much worse.  And I am genuinely curious as to how it could be fixed, without introducing other issues or making it pointless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flubb said:

 

That's how Epic got its reset though. ?

 

Totally fair point. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wulfmaer said:

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.

 

This is an interesting information. Are there patch notes or forum threads where  I can learn about? As I am fairly new in Wurm (1.5 y and a bit) I am not aware when it was implemented, and whether a band-aid against snipers was the main motive. For me (Vyn follower) both full SB and ML boost give me a motive to pray several times a day as a non priest (unless I forget it). As a non priest, I have no axe to grind with who casts RoS, except for a sense of fairness I consider crucial in PvE. But before the journal goal, global spells were a fairly rare occurrence. The crisis unfolded due to the Benediction goal "Cast a Global Spell".

 

And again, I consider Gwyn's proposal for a solution as useful, though it might be sensible to limit the number of priests who could achieve the journal goal within a 24hr period. The main problem is the long backlog of sufficiently high priests awaiting global spell casting. In fact, every "better" priest account still traffickable in Wurm will be eligible, and account owners will have a vital interest in promoting their priests. Therefore, the number of priests awaiting the goal is high, and it will take some time until the contention is removed. But repeated sniping and unfair cast grabbing will practically hold that process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GoldFever said:

We have a clear case here of the "caster" being told to either get on board someone else's train or to just forget about meeting that goal.

 

Fake news. I asked him to postpone it, and have a go at it the next round. You keep blatantly distorting what has happened, and what the thread is about; it's literally open to everyone. It's not a form of PvP in any shape, I want to see that definition. I'm trying to cooperate with people on our mutual interests, not fight them to further my own. If you don't believe that: I charged RoS a second time after my priest had it to (nearly) clear the roster. And if they put the gun on my chest I would have skipped Holy Crop this round if it's the only way to appease them.

Disagreement with how to cooperate on this is one thing, but the notion that this is an aggressive act against someone is ridiculous.

And that you think a simple "No" would take a saint tells a lot more about you than anyone else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Fake news. I asked him to postpone it, and have a go at it the next round. You keep blatantly distorting what has happened, and what the thread is about; it's literally open to everyone. It's not a form of PvP in any shape, I want to see that definition. I'm trying to cooperate with people on our mutual interests, not fight them to further my own. If you don't believe that: I charged RoS a second time after my priest had it to (nearly) clear the roster. And if they put the gun on my chest I would have skipped Holy Crop this round if it's the only way to appease them.

Disagreement with how to cooperate on this is one thing, but the notion that this is an aggressive act against someone is ridiculous.

And that you think a simple "No" would take a saint tells a lot more about you than anyone else.

 

it was not my intent to personally attack you in any way. I completely respect what you are attempting to do here and understand that this situation is very frustrating for you.  I hate seeing people who are really trying to do something nice have their efforts frustrated.  I hope this all works out well.  However, I do think that modifying your approach upon the lines I have suggested would lead to a much lower frustration level while still meeting the overall objective. Good luck.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

it was not my intent to personally attack you in any way. I completely respect what you are attempting to do here and understand that this situation is very frustrating for you.  I hate seeing people who are really trying to do something nice have their efforts frustrated.  I hope this all works out well.  However, I do think that modifying your approach upon the lines I have suggested would lead to a much lower frustration level while still meeting the overall objective. Good luck.

 

Thank you, I genuinely apprechiate this. I feel like I've been confronted with a lot of malcontents who try to piss on this from the sidelines, and I apologize if I treaded on your toes in my defensiveness against that. There are genuine reasons for why I went for this "hardline approach" though, but it takes another thread to thoroughly discuss it. You can either take my word for it or leave it, or take it with a pinch of salt, but what you propose is, at least as a modus operandi for a forum based organization - more problematic than it would first seem. As an "impromptu organization" as the other caster had attempted, it'd be perfectly fine though, so I can see why I may look like the antagonistic element, that's why it was so important to me in to stress in other posts how both groups did not "come from the same place" exactly.

But I think the forum based organization has proven to be a failure, as I predicted in its very OP, not without a bit of cynicism. I'm still deciding on giving it another shot, but I'm not hopeful for it and may do the next one as you say. The thing just is, with the forum post being up and "running", doing it that way would have treaded over and basically betrayed the people who signed up for it. I at least owe them a heads up (well ahead of time) that the operation is cancelled - that is basically the whole reason I denied the caster for this round. I was "honourbound" in a way. I hope that clears up why I didn't go with "the obvious route" as several people, not just you, had suggested.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ekcin said:

Are there patch notes or forum threads where  I can learn about?

 

The change that added a 24 hour period to pray and collect the rewards for the rite cast was added in Sept. 2018, see

This coincided with adding 5 hour sleep bonus to all the rite spells, and not just the Rite of Spring.

 

Searching the forums for 'Rite of Spring' will a history of planned and ninja casts, and suggested solutions. (google search of forum for 'rite of spring').

 

I think I also recall some discussion elsewhere at the time, probably in that twich video that appears to be no longer available, linked from VI.068

 

4 hours ago, Wonka said:

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

 

Clunky, maybe... But, what if there was a window, say a day, between the rite cast being able to be cast, and when those who have the journal achievement are able to be part of the cast. This would allow for a degree of community organization to allow its newer priests to gain the achievement, while not imposing an overly long delay on the servers with a smaller priest population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how I predicted we'd have this issue fairly early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if we try sarcasm?

 

OOOoooOOOOooo making a goal unattainable for the 99% of the population that wants to play fair will SURELY boost numbers in both short and long term!

 

Ok but seriously.... Replace "cast it" with "do the post-ritual prayer thing 20times" and if code allows it, have being part of the cast count as the 20 times.  Still takes ages to prevent trivializing, still gives a reason to be part of the actual cast (since people who openly antagonize entire segments of the community are sooooo important heh heh heh heh heh).

Edited by Mordraug
I got my journals mixed up ... it's late!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wulfmaer said:

Clunky, maybe... But, what if there was a window, say a day, between the rite cast being able to be cast, and when those who have the journal achievement are able to be part of the cast. This would allow for a degree of community organization to allow its newer priests to gain the achievement, while not imposing an overly long delay on the servers with a smaller priest population. 

 

The issue with this kind of suggestion, I suspect, is that it makes the journal task trivially easy to complete, which is inconsistent with it being part of a high-level journal tier that has a valuable reward.  According to the stated design goals, journal entries aren't intended to be something you can bang out in a week without insane dedication.  My point above was that any proposed solution should involve a similar level of effort or rarity, just without the possibility of being screwed by idiots.  I did see a separate suggestion from Flubb, which looked good, but seemed to involve some complexity.  Or perhaps the right answer is just to replace the goal with something else.  It's a tough one, which is why it's taken so long to correct I'd think.

Share this post


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

The issue with this kind of suggestion, I suspect, is that it makes the journal task trivially easy to complete, which is inconsistent with it being part of a high-level journal tier that has a valuable reward.  According to the stated design goals, journal entries aren't intended to be something you can bang out in a week without insane dedication.

 

I've addressed this critique in the thread where it belongs:

I'd encourage you to discuss it there. It saves us repeating ourselves and keeps the conversation coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Madnath said:

It's funny how I predicted we'd have this issue fairly early on.

 

Yes, it's been obvious to many of us since day one, hence my confusion about why nothing meaningful has been done to rectify it. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gwyn said:

Yes, it's been obvious to many of us since day one, hence my confusion about why nothing meaningful has been done to rectify it. Any ideas?

 

It went something along the lines of "the reward is powerful enough to justify the incredibly tough requirements."

 

In one respect, I agree that the reward for completing the journal tier is outrageously strong, and the requirements should be tough. I think most people here also agree with that sentiment. The problem arises when the actual completion isn't tough, but instead a combination of luck and reliance on others not to ###### you over. It creates a competitive and toxic dynamic between players who have the same goal.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree with changing the goal from casting the spell directly to obtaining the reward from a rite X amount of times.

 

For what it's worth, the argument that it would be too hard to change is inaccurate. It would be a few lines change to switch the goal over to some new requirement. The technical challenge comes from making sure existing players who completed the goal don't lose that journal tier when the requirement changes. This would require a database edit or something to flag a player who has one achievement to automatically obtain another.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think resistance may be met from people who *have* accomplished the goal. To sate their needs, I think the goal should be modified to:

 

"Cast / Assist in casting a global spell  or    receive benefits by praying within 24 hours of a rite X numbers of times. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id rather see it change to something like 'contribute to 20% of the rite pool' or something similar, you could argue that its just a different name for getting 70 prayer but its no different to the 100 gems you get from getting to 70 prayer, or the sac 10k items and spend 100k favor being pretty much the same, they are all interconnected anyway and then they will all rely on your actual effort to the cause and not pure luck in timing irrespective of that effort.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sindusk said:

I would wholeheartedly agree with changing the goal from casting the spell directly to obtaining the reward from a rite X amount of times.

 

I am trying to refrain from discussing fixes here (perhaps a futile goal), but since as far as I know there's no dedicated suggestion thread with this idea, I'll reply to it here:

 

Such a change might make sense for Holy Crop and Rite of Spring but would have little to no impact on the problem for Ritual of the Sun (8 total casts on Freedom in 4.5 years) and Rite of Death (3 times in 4 years). X would have to be a very small number or vary by deity to account for the huge differences in rite cast frequencies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SmeJack said:

Id rather see it change to something like 'contribute to 20% of the rite pool' or something similar, you could argue that its just a different name for getting 70 prayer but its no different to the 100 gems you get from getting to 70 prayer, or the sac 10k items and spend 100k favor being pretty much the same, they are all interconnected anyway and then they will all rely on your actual effort to the cause and not pure luck in timing irrespective of that effort.

 

I suggested this a couple weeks back in the Xanadu thread (with different numbers).

Creating a separate suggestion thread for it now so it can be properly critiqued and discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to jump in with all this, there's valid concerns and such, but I feel the biggest thing is most priests feel like they're doing the bulk of the work, which is fair. 

 

Would a good alternative solution be to have missions add to the rite pool (I believe Oblivionnreaver suggested this, for credits sake) so non priests can help fill it, and they can be available more often without one person breaking their back in doing so? 

 

combined with a 3-6 month cooldown on actually casting, and a high channelling requirement to cast? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non priests can already help and the channeling is already a factor increasing with links. The crux of the issue is having to be in exactly the right place at the precise right moment no matter how much effort you put in.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean difficulty, I mean requiring 90 skill to even attempt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Retrograde said:

I dont mean difficulty, I mean requiring 90 skill to even attempt

What about priests who dont have 90 channeling? Are they forced out of the rewards just because they dont have the necesary channeling? That doesnt solve the problem, that just adds another requirement to the journal entry (90 channeling) that further alienate those who are currently suffering from the issue. 

 

There are good suggestions here. Use them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the issue is that the mechanics for a goal that is forced as a community project actively prevents community effort and only drives wedges between everyone and here are many suggestions in many threads that could help bring back people working together and some that even allow solo players to solo play"

 

"ok but what if it required 90 channeling instead"

 

:mellow:

  • Like 3

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
Sign in to follow this