Improving player numbers.
-
I stopped playing over a month ago.
Frankly im finding server is boring as hell,there was never anyone around when i logged on not that the server was empty just they were all already off doing there own things.
So i gave it another try a couple of weeks ago i did for three days would run some low level crappy quests and wait for an hour and never meet a single player.
I tried logging in on a timezone that wasn't mine and i had fun for a couple of hours with the 3 other players that were online but that isn't something i can do very often,so i called it quits and im now playing other games on my Xbox one.Ive not Quit CoA im just finding it boring and i don't play games to be bored.
-
Sounds a like a good plan Amy Veln.
Hopefully we'll get you back in the future and there will be a few more folk around to liven things up for you.
Thanks for all the feedback people, especially the constructive stuff. Looking into various things that have been mentioned here, and in the past.
-
I am going to be slowing down myself as classes are around the corner. I will still login, build dungeons, and all- just I want do such with as much vim and vigor.
-
Don't you want to feel like you accomplished something difficult to get to where you are?
If your fun is dependent on your success, then you are playing the wrong game.
I am not sure who you are, but I doubt anyone has a definition of fun that is a constant string of failures. Or watching people earn promotions and advance in game while you yourself are hitting invisible walls and glass ceilings. It is social imperative to compare yourself to others. Yes, we do want to feel like we've accomplished something difficult.
The main reason I am trying to convey is this. If you want improved player numbers, then you have to not only make a great system, and a great server, you also have to create a good server identity. You have to give them reasons to stay, have them invest themselves into the server and the characters that they make. You do that by making them stakeholders in the server's identity by giving them anchors and memories that they can cherish and be proud of. This means spreading out the wins and making sure that everyone is having fun, even the losers.
We're here to have fun with a community of players, not "win".
For quite a bit of recent memory, the server has denigrated into a game of winning, not fun.
-
For quite a bit of recent memory, the server has denigrated into a game of winning, not fun.
I had written up a TLDR-level post that basically said that. Went into what I thought made it seem that way, whether it be player activities or DM/server trends.
Then I deleted it, with the sense of futility the specifics would just be flamed. But What Thune Says is basically my feeling.I have no problem with Characters wanting to win, but often the IC feel I get is the Character is just taking actions to push an agenda of the player.
And that you need to have an Agenda. With checkboxes and to-do lists.To slightly modify what Thune says:For quite a bit of recent memory, the server has denigrated into a game of PLAYER winning, not CHARACTER fun.
-
People need to stop being bitter and acting like it's up to the DMs and other players to grant them "access" to some sort of fun they don't otherwise have. The environment on CoA has a ton of potential right now. You probably have a better chance at having fun if you aren't worried about winning, because at this point the people who complain about "losing" seem to care more about "winning" than the people who actually "win"
It's all useless semantics. Play the game and have fun, and create the environment you want. I'm gonna say again, the server environment on CoA is awesome right now and there's no better time to play if you're willing to dedicate yourself.
-
Guys… I think some of you are being misdirected now. Remember who the enemy is - not the DMs, not the players, but old systems and mind-sets that hold us back.
-
Since my last post looked over what has been said here.
Some good feedback and ideas that we hope the team will look at.
Again even though some suggest it, we are not here to bash the DM's or Players.
My hope is that change will come and improve on what we have.
RD
-
Mt personal viewpoint is that, anyone who plays and tries to go for something in game should have a good chance of achieving it, while having extra special things for those who go above and beyond.
It's tough to balance that though sometimes, as you can end up in a position where people feel like the things for "above and beyond" should be more easily achieveable. I think something to consider is what people would want to be able to reasonably achieve in a "standard playthrough" of a character, because the reality is, we can't have everyone forming an army of goblins and taking over the city, equally, it shouldn't be an epic struggle to claim a cave for your allies.
Which is something we tried to address somewhat with introducing claimable bases (could do with some more of those probably as having just a few hasn't worked out in reality as it was hoped, which was for them to be vied over by competing factions, what's mostly happend is the same few players have alternated between them) as well as implementing easily joinable factions (remember that quest you could do to become a member of the two main factions? again, didn't entirely work out as planned as often it was used to just get the cool intro item then ignored, or the quest was done, but never turned in, in order to re do it every reset for extra gold/loot/xp, and also, people felt you didn't get enough from it (faction status wise) at the same time)
-
These are only suggestions, I have no magic bullet solution. For me, to improve player numbers, you need more players on at any given time (well..duh…). To do this is simple, make more delivery quests that provide modest pay for characters and make them for any level character (ala the old fivestar quest) what this did for me was to provide a steady in game income. With that I actively sought out new characters (and new players, but that was another time) aided them, now? i cannot do that, or do so in a very limited capacity, casting only buffs on the occasional character, who has no interest in really getting to know my character. how will this aid? simple, i will stay on longer, i will have resources that i can use to make long term allies and others will too, you will not see a situation where there are maybe 3 players on and you decide..i will come back later, if there is more to do in this manner, the 3 players may become 6 or more, which attracts more people.
how would this help? well, for me I would be able to save coins to make wands and gems to supply to new characters and knowing said supply is there would easily aid me in building up a network of allies (not to the same degree of course i had in v3 and 4, there were more people at any given time then). and yes, i would supply to new ones(i have always done so when i have a reliable steady in game income), now i horde the precious few coins i get, my aid only coming to new ones if i deem a rest worth my while vs the expense. And i do not need people telling me, there is lots of coins if you quest, there is not, i always spend more on any given scripted quest than i gain, i used to use the deliveries to build up coins for supplies for myself to quest and for allies. now i DO NOT have enough resources to really join any quest with a reasonable chance of survival
pitting players against defeat-able foes would be nice too, any time you gear it to a pvp situation you pemadeath a lot of characters with potential, when a player loses a character in such a matter, they can and will sometimes take a break before returning, now if you have too many players dealing with this situation at the same time it is compounded we have a finite number of players now. to keep them the pvp HAS to be controlled in a different manner than is being done now. I realize many players live for this, i am not saying remove it, but tone back the events where two sides clash and out of the smoke arises a handful of survivors
we as players can adjust out attitudes regarding the win/loss thing, but fundamentally i personally feel with what i suggested, can be used a framework for improving things, if they only improve it for me one player, it will have a trickle down effect as i know given "that" i will use it to aid others, i have a proven track record in the past, now if the DMs are wondering why i have not been more active in aiding others? the now have a definitive answer, onbe i had brought up before on the forum. If you are interested in improving the numbers, you have to start one player at a time. True this is catering to me..one player..but what effect will it have on others? think about it?
-
@Darlene:
These are only suggestions, I have no magic bullet solution. For me, to improve player numbers, you need more players on at any given time (well..duh…). To do this is simple, make more delivery quests that provide modest pay for characters and make them for any level character (ala the old fivestar quest) what this did for me was to provide a steady in game income.
Quests like that are actually very good, as they should take minimal effort to create and are are easy to ad interaction as others may join as escorts for pay, even if they "did" the quest already.
-
Brief summary: Leave more room for player made changes to the server, even if they are freakishly unproductive, and be more willing as dm team AND players, to kill your darlings if it progresses the server.
These are my two cents, from the peanut gallery. "New is always better". One of the great challenges CoA has always had, is that unlike our competition from EFU, we have had very few "versions" of the server, and very little has changed over time. I started at the end of V2, and played through all of V3+V4 (Which, when we are honest, were hardly a new version), and all of V5. We changed a lot in V5, which brought a lot of new life to the server. However, as we old farts quickly learned, while the "setting" was changed, we still used all of the old quests; we still used the same NPCs, making V5 more of a paint job on the old car, rather than an actual change. Since then, content has been added, a lot of cool Things, but adding new content is not the same as actual change.
We have always had the discussion, of the pace in which changes are made. And from my perspective, the dm team has far too often been too conservative, to allowing change, actual change, to occur. “Kill your darlings”, is the approach GoT used to great success. Be willing to let even your most beloved factions, NPCs, structures, ideas, die, in the name of continuing the storytelling of the server.
The Red Scarf rebellion was never allowed to succeed. The Plebian Court, died as a faction, IMO because the dm team were too in love with Hardcastle to let them succeed. Since I started playing, the DM team always stopped players and characters from achieving drastic changes. Such things slowly kills off ambitious concepts, until you reach the point were “My highest dream as a guard, is to become warden”, rather than “I will earn my position as warden, and abuse my authority to have HC executed and making Arabel a vassal state of the netherese”.
I know too well the arguments that “Dms aren’t paid, and it takes eons to redesign an area, so changes will take time”. But the way the server looked when I left a few months ago, the room for character made changes was so small, that even the mightiest of concepts or attempts at change, were only allowed tiny pebbles in the water, rather than the tidal waves the concepts deserved.
My suggestion. If someone plots to kill Lhal, let them. If a rebellion is brewing in Old Town, allow them the actual chance of killing off HC. But it goes to the players as well. Accept that your concept is not anymore special that anyone elses. Be willing to let your character die, or FAIL. Are you kicked out of a faction? Suck it up, and don’t discard your concept because they had a setback. Take risks, and accept the consequences of your success or failure. -
^
Like
GG!
Share
Retweet
Swipe Right -
@Strife:
In the upcoming week we are going to open up an Anti-Law faction, and provide alot more support to Anti-Law characters, while accentuating the importance that they do tell a good story because no one likes when a Half Black Dragon quest trains to level 11 and only then throw their weight around.
Anymore on this? Is it due to be rolled out this week, and indication or teasers as to what we might expect?
-
Olouth has hit the nail on they head with his post. Unless CoA is open to change in a sufficient way it will always remain the same and keep going around in this type of cycle.
-
As a CoA player of 10 years, I am forced to agree with Olouth and Thune on this.
DMs here do a great job, I have never had issues with anything, I love this place.
Could use a major shakeup, could use some easier apping, and easier to accomplish cool stuff wouldn't hurt either. And even if accomplishing stuff is hard, make something neat to show off their accomplishments like the hydra head in Shylocks, the Red Scarf monument or the Pale Sands statue.
-
@O'louth:
The Red Scarf rebellion was never allowed to succeed.
It didn't succeed, it wasn't disallowed by the DM team. We had ideas of how to handle it succeeding. I know I wanted it to.
The Plebian Court, died as a faction, IMO because the dm team were too in love with Hardcastle to let them succeed.
Had nothing to do with hardcastle. The faction died for various reasons, a lot of them involving players telling us they didn't like the faction.
Since I started playing, the DM team always stopped players and characters from achieving drastic changes.
I know you've been around for various pretty drastic changes implemented by players Olouth… come on man, yeah, it's not every day it happens, but if it was, then things would get weird pretty fast.
If someone plots to kill Lhal, let them.
- Yeah, we will. but not just if they plot to do it. It's got to be pretty cool, and take a while. Otherwise we'd have no NPCs in a week or five.
If a rebellion is brewing in Old Town, allow them the actual chance of killing off HC.
The cities been taken over before, NPCs have been assasinated before, wars have been fought before, factions have been destroyed before. We do facilitate things happening, but if it was as simple as getting a group together and saying lets do it, then surely you can see that would cause some serious problems?
There is a balance to be found, and sometimes it might not be right, but it's not because "we" don't want to change things, or "we" don't like the idea of something happening. With these things, we do need time to actually figure out what will happen next, and how things will be handled if X happens, or if Y happens, and we DO have those discussions.
There's not much I can do to change your mind on something like this though, short of opening up the DM forums for people to see the actual discussions which cover a whole bunch of this stuff. I just have to hope you believe the DM's aren't trying to be dicks and stop anything from happening through the basic logic that - we play here too, and want cool shit to happen, because otherwise we would be bored.
But it goes to the players as well. Accept that your concept is not anymore special that anyone elses. Be willing to let your character die, or FAIL. Are you kicked out of a faction? Suck it up, and don’t discard your concept because they had a setback. Take risks, and accept the consequences of your success or failure.
Yep, and a lot of players DO this, tonnes. There's the odd time someone is really attached to a character, which is understandable, and sometimes that ends up with a stale ending or something, or dissapointment, and inability to "roll with the punches" because it wasn't their plan for the characte.
We try to help out in those situations from our side as well, often offering suggestions, or even some other in game connection, or granting these characters special perks to give them a new lease of life, but it doesn't always work out.
-
The Red Scarf Rebellion certainly didn't fail to succeed due to a lack of willing from the DM Team, if anything I actually got the impression there was an appetite to accommodate change if we were willing to really push for it, but it was never on my agenda for what I wanted out of the concept. Its broader failings were entirely down to PCs.
Server change is a difficult beast to get right. Change should be challenging and give a sense of accomplishment when achieved. I think the DMs have the right balance, maybe they could be a little more flexible but by and large as a matter of policy I don't think they're miles out.
I do agree however that the server itself could have benefitted previously and again now from some more changes. We've had multiple versions of Arabel now where not a lot has been wildly different, quests have been the same, maybe redressed, areas by and large the same, many factions have survived Versions in one incarnation or another.
A real change would be a huge breath of fresh air, I appreciate the difficulties, Arabel has a sense of canon and familiarity that is much of its appeal, it is, after all, The City of Arabel, and how many ways can you interpret that? But I would love to see more drastic sweeping changes between versions. It's a hell of a lot of work though, both creatively and the man hours to realise it. I also appreciate its probably not what you're looking to get out of this thread discussion. Change the entire setting is a huge undertaking and not very helpful.
-
Players can and do impact the server in wild, incredible ways.
I'll use my talking-from-experience-as-a-former-DM card again here. You should listen to Zool when he says the DM forums do thoroughly discuss these player movements and how they can impact the server. The possibilities of radically changing the landscape is considered when it becomes relevant. I think the biggest barrier to implementing sweeping changes are the reserve resources many longstanding NPCs have built up (often due to the actions of former PCs, ironically enough). I don't see that considered by players a lot when you have rebellion plots.
Taking down the miltia, for example, isn't just murdering militia PCs. You also have to consider the top NPCs, their guards, the Penal Legionnaires being conscripted into guarding THEM, then the security defenses inside milita HQ, aaaand the allies the milita has…
Toppling something that big takes time and monumental effort. It CAN be done, but you have to have good reason and good effort. Why? Because DMs will need good reason and good effort on their part as well to enact your changes. It's a mutual relationship.
-
Some things:
There have been some grumblings of a v6 going about, though no real conversations yet. If that's something you as players might be interested in don't be shy about saying so.
You want to try and kill Lhal, or any other NPC? I'm down. Have a good plan though, or I will kill you heartlessly like a proper DM should.
Updating the quests is something I very much would like to see done, and I am not alone on that on the team. But as you all know by now, that's not as easy as waving a magic wand and making it so, so progress might seem slow.