asryn

I gained cyclicity and element principles.

[quote name='dst' date='11 November 2009 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1258012623' post='47271'] Imagine this: you try a quest and you fail. Or simply don't get the wp cause you are too late/etc/bla bla. In this case you can be mean and give the quest a bad mark. Not to mention that you can give bad marks to quests even if you don't even try them. So I agree that the rating should be provided by the ones that solve them. Not by everyone. Or we can grade quests on the forum but not in the game ( I mean for the ones that don't solve them). [/quote] Sure, of course you could. Just as you could give a high rating to any quest you solved, since it obviously worked reasonably well for you. If the goal is to improve quest quality, then I would argue feedback from those who struggled, or even those who chose not to attempt for some specific reason, might in some ways be more valuable than from those who succeeded. And if someone just wants to write 'this quest is stupid', then you roll your eyes and ignore it. The biggest drawback I see is that some quests have stages and if you never accessed the later stages then you never saw the whole quest. Maybe what is needed is to ask people to select an option when they vote - solved and won, solved but too late, tried and failed, didn't try. And provide some way of matching the option they choose with their rating and comment. That way if you want to look at only the input of those who won you can (and I agree that would sometimes be useful), but you would also have the option of considering all input.

Actually there is a place to rate a quest already; when you go to spend a WP in the shop it asks you to rate the quest that rewarded it before you spend it. But when you click that link it just says 'coming soon'. I wonder how hard that would be to implement? It would be nice if you couldn't spend the point until you had rated the quest, and also nice if there was a text box for written comments in addition to a rating. Of course, this doesn't do anything about quests that don't reward WPs, and it doesn't let you rate a quest unless you won, which might defeat the purpose. Maybe this should be part of the new quests page instead? In any event I like the idea of encouraging feedback; I think it might actually be quite helpful for quest creators to know what works and what doesn't.

[quote name='dst' date='10 November 2009 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1257890098' post='47173'] Drats! I wrote half an hour a loong and calm post. Then I erased it. So:MD is a hard game. Yes, it requires patience. Yes, it has filters. Yes, it is an elitist game. Yes, it has players like me who yell and shout at every player (no, I don't shout only at new players: I shout at everybody who gives me a reason). But it gives you something you'll never ever find in another game:freedom! You are allowed to do whatever crosses your mind. The limit is indeed your imagination. Are all those (patience, filters, elitism) a high price to pay? No. I say a big NO!. There are lots of wrongs in MD but there are also many more great things to compensate. MD is not the game where you have specific goals to attain. You have them but they are few and after probably 3 months you can reach them all. MD is about creating your own goals. If you don't do that you'll get bored and leave. MD has no walthroughs, no help pages, almost no hints. It's the best like this. Why? Cause of the above statement. Imagine this: you register, go through the tutorial and then you are given all the information you need (game mechanics, crits levels, etc, etc). You will be bored to death in a week. You'll not have time to make friends, you'll not have time to integrate yourself. Also, if you get discouraged by a member who yells at you (aka me) then you're not too <insert the word I want to but fail to remember>, are you? Let me tell you a story: I was a noob. Back then Wodin was the star. He was arrogant and full of himself. I used to love stepping on his toes! I wanted to be better then him. I wanted to make him cry . So, instead of running away cause big bad Wodin stole my toy I defied him. I started to learn, train and in the end I defeated him. I don't quit cause of players! If you do then you show weakness. You need a backbone to survive in MD. I told you something mean? Be brave enough and reply. I might hate you for that but at least you may earn my respect. Again, MD is full of hypocrites. So I prefer a honest swear then a nice a**-kissing. Bah...I am bore to write those things again and again and again... [size="7"]One last thing: BURNS!!! I am not OLD![/size] [color="#0000FF"]*undresses the troll costume and throws it after Burns*[/color] [/quote] I don't think anyone is suggesting that MD should have everything laid out in a walkthrough, or that we should all be forced to play the same way. Exactly where the balance lies between giving newbies too much info and not enough is tricky and obviously something we are still discussing. But in a sense, I feel like you are making my point here. If the criteria for a new player to be successful in MD is someone who is extremely patient even when they have no way of knowing why the game is worth being patient for, who can create their own directions and goals with no guidance whatsoever, who doesn't mind being yelled at occasionally when they try to do so, and who finds being continually beat up by stronger players to be more challenging than frustrating - then that describes a fairly small group of people, and and we shouldn't be surprised that we aren't recruiting and keeping more of them. So, we can either accept that numbers will stay low and decide that's a reasonable trade-off to have only players who meet all of those criteria, or we can consider whether there are ways to support new players a bit more without sacrificing too much of what makes MD special.

So I doubt this is really why most people don't stay, but I do think it's relevant to this thread, so I will say it anyway. One of the things I have been hearing since I got here is how unique MD is (which it is), and how it encourages a different type of player than many other games. And so when someone shows up who has no patience, and no willingness to work things out on their own, and no interest in talking to other people - most of the time those people leave on their own, which is probably better for everyone. The people who choose to stay take pride in the game that they are helping to develop - and they should, because it's a pretty amazing place. At the same time, you can't have it both ways. The longer the list of qualities someone needs to have to be welcome in MD, the fewer the number of people who are going to have all of them. And while the pride that people take in MD is part of what I find so attractive about it, I think it sometimes comes across in ways that are not particularly welcoming to newbies. When a new player expresses frustration with some aspect of the game, or suggests an improvement, or does something that they didn't realize is discouraged, they are often shut down pretty hard, even if their intentions were good. And if they try to ask why, or to start a discussion about it, they are criticized for not having enough patience, or whatever relevant desired quality a good MD player is supposed to have, often in a very dismissive fashion. I've seen this happen multiple times, both in game and on the forum, and I really think it's discouraging. The message seems to be that if you don't have every quality on the list all the time, then you aren't good enough to be part of MD. I'll use Wolfmist's RP thread as an example, just because it's recent. I actually agree that the forum isn't the place for that, but certainly a reasonable person might have assumed otherwise. And he was trying to develop a character, something many newbies are criticized for not doing fast enough. Couldn't someone have acknowledged that he was trying to make a positive contribution, explained politely why we don't use the forum for roleplaying, and suggested better alternatives? I know that happened eventually, but why couldn't that have been the initial reaction? Again this isn't so much a comment on that specific issue, but I've seen that sort of thing happen many times in different situations. I'm not saying we need to go out of our way for every newbie standing at the gazebo whining at the top of their lungs, but if someone is displaying at least some positive qualities then maybe we could be a bit more patient and encouraging as they find their way. It's the nature of a game that is different and expects different things from its players that not everyone is going to be a perfect fit right away, but many people could be with a little time. And really, don't we want the type of players who want to understand the game and who get excited about discussing new ideas? I know it creates work for people to explain things, especially when some of the same suggestions get made over and over, but I think it is still worthwhile. Maybe Grido's FAQ will help with this, or maybe people can start saving some of their responses to cut and paste. And who knows, if enough people are bothered by the same issue then maybe it's one that deserves a closer look rather than being dismissed out of hand as 'not how we do things here'. I think this post is coming across as more critical than I intended it to, but I felt like it needed to be said. MD also has several really fabulous and creative ways of supporting newbies, including the LHOs and and the adept system, and I have seen just as many examples of people going out of their way to be helpful and to answer questions. If MD wasn't an amazing place filled with amazing people, I wouldn't still be here. But I do think that there is a lack of patience with unintentional screw-ups and a level of defensiveness about any implied criticism of the game that seems totally unnecessary to me. The game is still in development, which means that how things work isn't set in stone and isn't always clear, and I'm sure I'm not the only newbie who didn't really appreciate what that meant at the beginning in terms of things not being in their final forms yet. But MD has come a long way, and it is built on a strong enough foundation to withstand some criticism and even a bit of shaking from new players who bounce around a bit as they try to settle in. And I would like to think that it's possible to take pride in what has been accomplished without sending the message that so many people just aren't worthy of being a part of it.

Happy Birthday!

When I tried to do free credits tonight, I got this error: We are testing somthing, please wait and try later. Also please report this error if its still happening later. Thank you. http://magicduel.com/ifrm/ifrm.freecredits.php I've tried a few times over the last several hours; same message.

[quote name='Grido' date='26 October 2009 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1256593514' post='45822'] Offensive or negative comments, are in themselves comments....so technically nothing to do about them If there is swearing in them, it's a different matter. [/quote] To clarify, I don't consider negative or critical comments to be offensive and I didn't mean to suggest that they should be removed. If you want to insult someone in their PL that seems like fair game to me, but there should be limits on the language you can use to do that. Swearing is obviously one possibility, but I was actually referring more to harassment, or language that insults entire groups of people rather than just the player in question, or jokes about things that aren't appropriate to joke about. In my mind those types of comments cross the line from rude to offensive and shouldn't be used in publicly readable logs.

As long as we are addressing player logs, perhaps we could also clarify the appropriate steps to take about posts that aren't spam but are offensive or inappropriate in some way? I haven't seen many of these but there are a few out there, of various types and in various player's logs. Maybe there should be one person listed as the contact for any problem with PLs, who would have the power to change them when necessary?

[quote name='Windy' date='24 October 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1256425931' post='45660'] I was thining of this very same song! How wierd! [/quote] Not that weird, it's the only Windy song that I know of. It is a good one, though!

Who's peeking out from under Wind's Sanctuary, Calling a name that's lighter than air? Who's bending down to give me a rainbow, Everyone knows it's Windy. Who's tripping down the streets of Marind Bell, Smiling at everybody she sees? Who's reaching out to capture a moment, Everyone knows it's Windy. And Windy has stormy eyes That flash at the sound of lies, And Windy has wings to fly Above the clouds, above the clouds... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFHLmTz4RI (Ok, I know that's not what you had in mind, but I couldn't resist. Apologies to The Association...)

I will cast a vote for C. I think it includes the best range of questions, in terms of both topics and difficulty level.

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='13 October 2009 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1255481629' post='44614'] votes will take as long as required to get an enough number of votes to be relevant. For example yrthilian voting took longer because it reached a high number of votes slower, while this one exploded from the second i posted it up. I am ssuming this was becaues ppl thought its an dobvious choice and thats visible in the final count too. I am sure the voting on lr will be slower for example as the competition is tighter. Voting rate drops exponentialy, first and second day are alomost all days given. Who is not active two days in a row during the festival will probably have little knowledge about what to vote anyway. I dont want to offend anyone but i cant wait after all to vote , if they cant decide within a day, with all the docs in front of them, then thats it. I dont want to turn md into an election campaign. The votes are given based on the actiivy and reputation of that candidate untill then, the docs are just a way to make clear their intentionsm but people already know who each candidate is. You can familiarize with the candidate during the voting times. [/quote] I agree that this election would probably have had the same result regardless of process. And I suspect that you are also right that in a closer race there will be more time to vote. So while I would still prefer a set voting time, I see your point that it may be less likely to affect the results than I had assumed. Personally, I would prefer not to base my vote solely on the activity and reputation of the candidates, although those certainly factor into it. I would like to also consider their plans for the realm they want to lead, and how they intend to go about achieving their goals. I would prefer to vote for a candidate who has a vision for the land that I would like to see implemented, rather than for the person who is friendliest, or most talkative, or who has accomplished things in the past but is less motivated for the future. These aren't things that can be determined instantly, no matter how active I am or how well I know the candidates, and most of the candidates' documents gave only vague suggestions as to their plans. I believe that including these factors in the decisions of voters would increase our chances of choosing effective leaders, and I think the current system makes it very difficult to do so - although I do respect your concerns about a drawn-out election campaign. Well, if your intention is for us to vote solely based on what we already know about the candidates, then I agree that we have sufficient time to do so. And if I choose to decide differently, and the process stays as is, then at least I will know in advance next time to be more aggressive in my questioning.

I have a concern about the voting system as it is currently implemented, namely that it takes place too quickly. When the election for King of Necrovion was first announced, I imagined that there would be some time (at least a few days) for potential candidates to consider their plans, put forth strategies, talk with potential allies or rivals, etc. And then once the list of candidates was known, time for the rest of us to ask questions and discuss the issues to determine who the best choice would be. I am not suggesting the entire process should be dragged out for weeks, merely that there should be some set timetable (maybe 2-3 days per stage), ideally with opportunities provided for discussion and debate. When the election takes place this quickly, and then closes without warning, it favors candidates who throw their hat into the ring on impulse, without thinking through their goals, plans, and responsibilities. If the idea is to provide stable leadership for the lands, this seems ill-advised. On the voter side, having so little time to vote means that those who made snap decisions based on popularity were more likely to have their votes counted than those who tried to think carefully about their choices. In taking the time to vote responsibly, by talking to the candidates and asking questions about their plans and qualifications, I missed the opportunity to vote altogether. Let me be clear that I am in no way disparaging any of the candidates or voters, nor do I have any issue with the final outcome. I am simply pointing out what I see as a flaw in the implementation of the election that reduces its potential to select the most qualified leaders for the lands.

I have hesitated to speak on these issues since I am both young and not affiliated with the land in question. But given the voting system Mur has laid out, perhaps it is that much more important that I should. I have followed recent events with interest, and made a reasonable effort to educate myself on related issues. Yet I do not know any of the candidates well, and many details of their actions and histories are not publicly available. As a result, it is difficult for me to judge their potential and imagine what type of leadership they might provide. I understand and respect Mur's reasons for allowing everyone over 50 days to vote, but as things stand there must be many people in my situation - torn between not voting at all, or voting somewhat randomly based on popularity and best guesses. If important decisions in the realm are to be made by public elections, I would like to see the system designed to encourage everyone to vote responsibly. With that perspective, I would like to second Ailith's suggestion of a debate on the issues. If it is not possible for this to take place in real time, perhaps a public forum would be an appropriate alternative? Give each candidate their own forum topic in which to post a description of their relevant past history and qualifications, and their plans for the future, and then allow a few days before voting begins for a question and answer session. Anyone could post questions in that topic for the candidate, and they would be able to respond as they see fit. If these topics were pinned and advertised so that all were aware of their existence, and if the candidates took this opportunity to expand on their platforms, then all citizens of the realm could make a more educated choice for their votes. EDITED TO ADD: During the time it took me to write this post, the voting went live and statements were posted for each candidate - which tell me more than I knew before, but not as much as I would hope to know. So perhaps I am too late, but I will put this forward anyway in hopes it might be considered for future elections. And in fact, depending on how long voting will remain open perhaps there is still time for us to benefit from public discussion with the candidates for Necrovion. I know I would welcome that opportunity, and I believe the realm would benefit.

Thanks to all who participated; it was a truly impressive show. I can only imagine how much practice must have been required to produce such polished and though-provoking performances.

[color="#FF00FF"][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="4"]Happy Birthday![/size][/font][/color]

My understanding was that this particular creature was to serve as a friend and companion, rather than a fighter. Therefore, I see no need for it to have stats at all. Perhaps in time it could grow to serve other functions - to assist with information storage, or carry messages, or some other activity that is not battle-related. Given that this will be a constructed creature, I would suggest that perhaps existence is the appropriate goal for its initial incarnation. Additional functions could always be added later, once your initial goals are realized.