(no subject)

[oblivium]

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Good day, dear Restless! As always, we aim to adjust and improve Nightfell whenever possible, which is why we'd like to run a poll by you regarding the future of the game's AC. Now that our first round is over, we realize just how intangible and confusing the requirements may seem to be, and it's a fine line to walk for everyone. To remedy this, we've decided to ask you what you think and what kind of system you'd prefer for the next rounds.

Because Plurk is limited as far as options and characters go, we'll detail the answers here. Feel free to vote on Plurk, reply to this post, or both!

A.

► We keep the same system, but clarify the guidelines:

A brief summary of what your character has been up to that doesn't rely mostly on handwaved actions, links optional

As we keep an eye out whether threads are provided, we should be able to find evidence of 1. an effort to branch out (ie. tagging a few people and/or avoid exclusively tagging inboxes/castmates), 2. involvement that amounts to more than a few days of active play within the month, and 3. tags that aren't mostly comprised of one-liners

Ongoing threads are fine, but tagging them once or twice every month, for instance, hardly displays a desire to be engaged with the setting/other players

We don't expect anyone to be all over the place all the time. Check-in games are easier to squat, and it's one of the reasons why it's important to us to ensure that players do have the time and desire to participate, especially because AC is relatively easy. These guidelines are implemented in an effort to counter potential squatting and to be fair to current players as well as future applicants

Notify us before the last week of a month if extenuating circumstances prevent you from playing

B.

► A mininum of 2 or 3 threads, a brief summary of what your character's been up to, no comment count required. A couple lines are enough, just to give us an idea of potential consequences your character might face.

C.

► 8+ comments across 2-3 threads + a brief summary. A couple lines are enough, just to give us an idea of potential consequences your character might face.

D.

► 16+ comments across 2-4 threads + a brief summary. A couple lines are enough, just to give us an idea of potential consequences your character might face.

E.

► OTHER (please specify!)

We'll consider your input and feedback and do our best to find a decent compromise for everyone based on your insight! We've been having a blast with you guys and we're really just trying to make sure that everyone's on the same wavelengths. Thank you for your time!

Comments

[telepathy]

I feel like the ambiguity of A made a lot of people nervous, and I myself find that most AC policies that focus on the quality or partners that a thread are with tend to be irregularly or unevenly monitored through no fault of the mods' own.

For that reason, I'd like to see B or C be our new AC policy in order to keep the game active at its cap.

[oblivium]

Thank you for your feedback!

[immortalrose]

Hello mods!

I would personally love the idea of every player doing a brief summary about their characters' adventures, especially since it allows everyone to see who's doing what in-game. That's why I really like the idea of submitting a minimum of two or three threads instead of a lengthy list.

I feel like that would be enough to really judge one's participation in Nightfell without having to set up a particular comment amount. Therefore, I vote for B and C.

[oblivium]

Thanks for your input, it's appreciated!

[chokuto]

Personally I think it's important to be vigilant of squatting in a capped game. I do want to say that I appreciate the mod effort there in monitoring that kind of thing. It's what I like about option A, but I also understand it's a lot of work on your guys' part and that it does come with ambiguity.

I imagine most games have implemented a more traditional AC like option B, C, etc because it tends to cover all the bases without being difficult to track or creating more work for the mods. That said, I do hope that some of that vigilance about squatting is maintained somehow, like if a player's AC each month is consistently with only one other player as an example, maybe they get a warning because it's a demonstrated behavior over time. Just a thought.

Either way, really appreciate you guys being flexible and open to changing things!

[oblivium]

It's definitely a thin line to walk, but you've all been bringing up really good points and we're taking them all into consideration. Thank you so much for your input!

[rumination]

I don't think future applicants should be a concern for current players. That ends up feeling very... Limiting? Weird? I don't know the best word for it, but for me, it ends up feeling vaguely like shady employment blackmail - "if you don't work hard enough, we'll fire you and find someone better to replace you" basically, which isnt how I want to feel about an RP game. If I'm not fast enough or engaged enough, according to a vaguely stated policy, then I know I'll always feel paranoid and bad about it.

I do understand that you want people engaged in the game and being active. The thought of check in AC is wonderful and just having to provide a summary drew me in, but it seems incongruent with the vision you have for the game. That said, I do want some guidelines, so I think C is our best option (and voted as such in the poll).

+1

[fawcetted]

i completely agree with this. and for this reason i've also voted for C as our best option. it provides a clear-cut ac that leaves no room for ambiguity, and provides current players in-game to work their schedules around knowing what to expect when ac comes around.

+1

[guitarpicks]

i agree with this. future applicants should not be a concern for current players or what motivates folks to complete ac. the emphasis here is a bit demoralizing in month one of the game as a current player and will continuously make me worry about external perception.

i understand that squatting is a concern in a game and absolutely think the game should have something in place to counter it! so i appreciate that the mods are focused on this ♥︎

check-in, low effort summary ac drew me in but given that A reads as a bit more complicated than that with clarity provided, i think we need to shift to a more concrete approach to AC which is why C makes the most sense to me. i think this lays out a "low effort" AC requirement, lets folks know exactly what is expected.

+1

[arrancar]

i agree. potential applicants shouldn't be a concern for current players. it makes it seem like the existing playerbase is replaceable if they don't perform up to standard and adds unnecessary pressure in a game that was meant to be no AC.

i understand the desire to prevent squatting and i wholeheartedly support it, but i think it's far too early to start assuming that players will squat the very first month into the game. it should be a concern that's addressed over time if and when a pattern noticeably emerges for a given player/character. i feel like it's more important to foster a positive relationship with existing players and prioritize their needs above those who aren't even in the game. right now, it seems like there is a lack of trust in players to be active for the long term when we're all still new and acclimating to the game setting. one of the appeals to a no activity check game is not having to worry about comment count and meeting stringent requirements, especially when RL gets busy or unexpected difficulties arises.

i'm totally ok with it if that doesn't align with the vision and expectations for this game. however, A seems too ambiguous to me as a result. it feels like there are requirements to it but without the clarity and validity of a number count, so i'm voting for C.

i'd also like to suggest implementing the poll in a locked post to the community instead of a plurk since i feel like this matter should only concern the players who're currently in game rather than open it to the public as a whole.

[acknowledgement]

Personally voted D! Thank you for asking for feedback on this topic, mods. Really appreciate the work you do.

[oblivium]

Thank you!

[declass]

hi!! i just have a comment about my question on the faq post from the other day about toplevels counting for ac. is there any chance of potentially letting people submit more than one thread from one toplevel for bonuses? even if it's just limiting the amount of threads you can submit from it, like how there's a limited amount of inbox threads you can submit.

i ask mostly since i feel like people might toplevel less if the entire thing only counts as one single thread, since it gives you less incentive to do so vs just making a catchall log instead. and i understand that the worry might be trying to make sure people also tag out, but i think that as long as people aren't only submitting things from a single toplevel it should potentially be okay.

[paraselenes]

+1! i think if the goal is to encourage people to tag out, there are other possible limits like "a top level comment can only count towards one thread" (so people would have to link individual subthreads for the most part) or "no more than X number of threads per top level" could work? or stuff like, "no more than (1) bonus thread per thread partner," etc.

[damnpire]

+1 to this also

i think limiting the amount like some of the other bonus ac submissions is good, as dimitri’s player also said

[coherer]

i voted a because i thought—and still think—it was fair and light (and similar to incensed's ac) when i read the rules before apping in.

i do, however, agree with all folks saying that the requirements for it were vague. that you guys monitor our activity anyway seems to make it almost necessary for linked comments as it'd mean less work for the mod team in the long run. so, though i voted a, i'm ultimately down for whatever!

[oblivium]

We definitely hear you! Thanks for your input!

[paraselenes]

thanks for opening discussion, mods!! i like A in theory, but it's both a lot of work for you guys and i think worrying about whether or not you've fulfilled ac has started to run counter to the overall laidback atmosphere here.

personally i voted B since it's basically check-in but with concrete threads, with the activity page listing out clear guidelines like you've listed in option A. it's chill, but also, if you're only tagging a castmate for multiple ACs or something the mods might give you a warning, etc. people raise good points about the lack of ambiguity from C onward though!

glancing at the warnings given out this month, i think a lot of them could also have been avoided by allowing retroactive hiatuses, with the understanding that you can only skip ac once every 4 months anyway. this might not jive with what you guys are looking to do, but just an idea.

[blackvestal]

I concur that - as the person who kept getting sicker but also somehow assumed I would get better every day - if there's a way to fairly implement allowing a retroactive hiatus once every six or twelve months, that would probably be a benefit (and it would count as a regular hiatus in that you'd have to make AC the next three times). Some things we expect will resolve very quickly and then they just don't! But I know that allowing retroactive hiatuses can also be a huge can of worms for modding, and so understand that not being built in.

[terraria]

I intend on voting B or C, largely because:

B feels like what most of us signed up for when we applied, and C is similar with a concrete stipulation on comments.

I shy away from A because:

} "effort to branch out" feels a little strange and I feel like it's not well-defined. I understand why it's there but with how Soulmates are an intregal part of the game's mechanics, I can't help but think its inclusion is confusing. I worry that emphasis on branching out will lead to shallow threads that don't lead to real CR.

} "involvements that amounts to more than a few days of active play" also feels too vague to me. I personally will run 10-15 tags a day. I know someone else that has 20-30. I know yet another that has 3 a day or so. If judged person by person, that would require the mod team to know everyone's tagging speed/length/etc and that's waaaay too much work to put on you guys.

I completely understand the worries you guys have as a mod team and that you may want to clarify. I think C is probably the best and most clear-cut of all these presented, and is the one to give you hopefully no additional work.

[oblivium]

100% understandable. Thank you for your input, you're all bringing up super good points!

[blackvestal]

I voted for B in the plurk poll, but I'm also okay with C now that I've read it more clearly (I was seeing it as 8+ comments per thread, which is not something I would be comfortable guaranteeing I can do every month - my public service job and chronic illness might object now and again) and would be okay staying at A as well so long as there was wiggle room built in for soulmates being acceptable to play with more frequently + an acknowledgment that some players don't tag daily/some only play on weekends/some only play on weekdays -- an easily reached guideline like "we expect at least 2 tags per calendar week unless you are on hiatus" for how you want to see activity spread out would be useful.

(If the requirement were 16+ then you'd be looking at 4 tags per calendar week instead, but same idea; I just know I am not the only person very glad dwrp has matured out of a "you need to play daily or you're inactive" attitude as many players have jobs/kids/etc that make that impossible, and "more than a few days" is vague enough I know I would be nervous not knowing how many days that actually was! Minimum number of tags per week or number of threads engaged in per week seems clear and manageable.)

[oblivium]

It really does help a ton reading all of you guys' feedback! Thank you so much!

[janescayre]

Unfortunately I don't have a plurk to vote with and I'm not interested in making one, but I trust whatever direction the game goes from here. I would lean B/C and it seems a fair number of people are inclined that way as well, but even if it shakes out another way I'm confident I'll be all right.

Thank you for checking in and responding to feedback promptly, I know there's kinks to smooth out but the speed, sincerity, and weight with which you consider player concerns gives me good faith in your capabilities.

[oblivium]

It's 100% fine, it still counts! Thank you for your feedback!

[fallendragon]

I think B keeps the spirit of a check in AC, which was a huge draw for me, while the concrete threads helps players feel less anxious because they have clear guidelines to follow. I thought the summaries were a fun way to do AC. It's a nice way to show your participation without the pressure of being judged if your activity doesn't meet a certain standard. I worry that by adding comment requirements with C or D, it would make the summaries feel like extra work instead of a neat way to tie AC into the game itself, which I thought was a cool idea.

[oblivium]

Also a good point! If it comes to that, instead of a summary, we might simply ask to list a few good and/or bad deeds/thoughts etc so that we can continue issuing rewards or consequences accordingly!

[wrists]

i was shopping for games for a long time before joining nightfell and a huge reason i chose this one was because of the lack of a comment count for ac. i do understand why it could end up changing but it was a massive draw for me and something that set this game apart from others. a summary of actions seems so much more quality and freeing for plotting and experimentation than trying to meet a comment count requirement. that being said, i always intended on being active and felt like this was the perfect fit. adding threads to be linked seems like a good compromise but to add a comment count requirement now would, frankly, be disappointing after how the game was advertised.

[oblivium]

Super understandable! Based on votes and overall feedback, I don't think we'll have to deviate all that much from what was originally advertized in order to satisfy everyone!

[philandery]

Hi Mods, thanks so much for your hard work and dedication to this game! Thank you for listening to the concerns of the playerbase and likewise fostering constructive discussion. It's been a really fun and comfortable environment to RP in!

I voted for B, and also feel it's a nice compromise to keep the atmosphere relaxed, while requiring concrete proof of engagement. The added guidelines to clarify expectations for activity is a great idea, I think. I can understand if other players want a more specific comment target to hit, however.

Assuming the mod team decides to move forward with a new method, it might be helpful to include a mod-written example or two of the sort of AC summaries you'd like to see. Perhaps not something that needs to be followed to a T, but just a general reference so that players/newcomers might have a better idea what to include in their write-ups at a glance.

Just a minor observation, but I'd also like to suggest adding the rule about Soulidarity threads being limited to one bonus AC submission on the list, just to have the information consolidated on the AC post.

Thanks so much again for being willing to work with us and for taking our suggestions into consideration!

+1

[telepathy]

Examples of what mods are looking for is always helpful to assuage player concerns about if they're meeting expectations!

[heavenstorn]

The check-in AC was one of the main reasons I apped, especially coupled with IC consequences for IC actions. Going to something with comment counts is the last thing I'd want, it's just unnecessary stress in my opinion. On the other hand, I worry that you've put a lot of extra stress on your heads with all of option A's stipulations. Especially since the playerbase hit cap so quickly!

All that said, my vote is with B as the best compromise.

[oblivium]

Honestly, I'd really rather not implement a comment count system, and I'm glad that most of you seem to be of the same mind! Thank you for your vote and feedback!

[nastycat]

So I already dropped, but echoing a few people here. A big part of the reason I was worried about not being active enough was because I was playing a character who wouldn't actively get involved with gameplot/event things. So I didn't think 'she saw someone being murdered, but just ate popcorn and watched from a tree' would pass.

So I'd vote BC, the option of being able to link threads would have been a nice security blanket for months when I've been around, but character didn't give a shit about whats going on.

Imma go back to moping now orz

[craters]

I was sorry to see you drop, I enjoyed the stuff we did a lot!! Just wanted to pass you a l'il ♥ note seeing you pop in here.