House Renaissance

Herenicus

Better serve them up a few more avatar pics, @Tibitha, just to be on the safe side.

Aodfionn

Tibitha said:

Aodfionn said:

For what it's worth, the Targossian houses are still new and are still coming into their own. I have a feeling that, a year from now, the houses will be a lot more fleshed out and have a lot more defined roles in terms of what they do. For what it's worth, the people in charge of the houses are seriously committed to making those identities and finding cool things for the roles we have chosen. 

I hope I didn't come over as attacking the Targ Houses and their leaders I didn't mean it that way.

Say three Hail Auroras as well as draw a picture of Aodfionn riding a giant battle-sloth and all will be forgiven, my child. 

(Now I see why they pay Herenicus the big bucks - good call)

Terra

I'm a big fan of the way Mhaldor chose to do Houses. It's really turning out nicely imo, and isn't finished yet.

Also, Star Wars > Star Trek (sry @Ruth), but I do like pwning all life more than being sneaky.

Ruth

Hmph!

Achimrst

Sarapis said:

Bluef said:

Sarapis said:

Jacen said:

Can we hurry up with the Renaissance, so we can get through this awkward IC/OOC phase, where some people post about it in House news, talk about it on public channels, at public places like Crossroads, and some people vehemently deny anything is happening at all?

I'm not directly involved in the Renaissance but I can tell you that the major thing making it go slowly right now is certain players in leadership positions being difficult or obstinate. Not going to name names, but they know who they are.

I'm at a loss for why entire cities (full of dozens of players) are being made to wait because of a handful who are "leaders." Maybe those being obstinate should simply be replaced, ie. named, shamed and voted out of "service." It's a game. Get on with the re-skinning of the Houses!

That is and remains an option, but as a last resort.

What I'm wondering is, why do you care what the leaders have to say? I mean it seems like redoing the houses is more of a game administrative thing then an IC thing right?

Tecton

Achimrst said:

Sarapis said:

Bluef said:

Sarapis said:

Jacen said:

Can we hurry up with the Renaissance, so we can get through this awkward IC/OOC phase, where some people post about it in House news, talk about it on public channels, at public places like Crossroads, and some people vehemently deny anything is happening at all?

I'm not directly involved in the Renaissance but I can tell you that the major thing making it go slowly right now is certain players in leadership positions being difficult or obstinate. Not going to name names, but they know who they are.

I'm at a loss for why entire cities (full of dozens of players) are being made to wait because of a handful who are "leaders." Maybe those being obstinate should simply be replaced, ie. named, shamed and voted out of "service." It's a game. Get on with the re-skinning of the Houses!

That is and remains an option, but as a last resort.

What I'm wondering is, why do you care what the leaders have to say? I mean it seems like redoing the houses is more of a game administrative thing then an IC thing right?

Because the players need to believe in the houses and what they stand for if there's going to be any chance of them thriving going forward. Being in their respective communities, they also have certain insights that we value, as with all feedback from our players. 

They're certainly not obligated to be a part of the process, by any means (but I haven't had anyone decline to be involved). We're not trying to offload the work onto the players, we're just offering as much opportunity as possible for the leaders and their associated organisations to help shape the future of it!

As I've said a few times, there's a huge number of moving parts, and while this is taking longer than we'd all like, we're trying to make these orgs sustainable for the next 17+ years of Achaea! 

Achimrst

Tecton said:

Achimrst said:

Sarapis said:

Bluef said:

Sarapis said:

Jacen said:

Can we hurry up with the Renaissance, so we can get through this awkward IC/OOC phase, where some people post about it in House news, talk about it on public channels, at public places like Crossroads, and some people vehemently deny anything is happening at all?

I'm not directly involved in the Renaissance but I can tell you that the major thing making it go slowly right now is certain players in leadership positions being difficult or obstinate. Not going to name names, but they know who they are.

I'm at a loss for why entire cities (full of dozens of players) are being made to wait because of a handful who are "leaders." Maybe those being obstinate should simply be replaced, ie. named, shamed and voted out of "service." It's a game. Get on with the re-skinning of the Houses!

That is and remains an option, but as a last resort.

What I'm wondering is, why do you care what the leaders have to say? I mean it seems like redoing the houses is more of a game administrative thing then an IC thing right?

Because the players need to believe in the houses and what they stand for if there's going to be any chance of them thriving going forward. Being in their respective communities, they also have certain insights that we value, as with all feedback from our players. 

They're certainly not obligated to be a part of the process, by any means (but I haven't had anyone decline to be involved). We're not trying to offload the work onto the players, we're just offering as much opportunity as possible for the leaders and their associated organisations to help shape the future of it!

As I've said a few times, there's a huge number of moving parts, and while this is taking longer than we'd all like, we're trying to make these orgs sustainable for the next 17+ years of Achaea! 

So...Achaea is dying in 17 years?

:P
Tecton edit: Half-life 3 confirmed!

Bluef

Tecton said:

Achimrst said:

Sarapis said:

Bluef said:

Sarapis said:

Jacen said:

Can we hurry up with the Renaissance, so we can get through this awkward IC/OOC phase, where some people post about it in House news, talk about it on public channels, at public places like Crossroads, and some people vehemently deny anything is happening at all?

I'm not directly involved in the Renaissance but I can tell you that the major thing making it go slowly right now is certain players in leadership positions being difficult or obstinate. Not going to name names, but they know who they are.

I'm at a loss for why entire cities (full of dozens of players) are being made to wait because of a handful who are "leaders." Maybe those being obstinate should simply be replaced, ie. named, shamed and voted out of "service." It's a game. Get on with the re-skinning of the Houses!

That is and remains an option, but as a last resort.

What I'm wondering is, why do you care what the leaders have to say? I mean it seems like redoing the houses is more of a game administrative thing then an IC thing right?

Because the players need to believe in the houses and what they stand for if there's going to be any chance of them thriving going forward. Being in their respective communities, they also have certain insights that we value, as with all feedback from our players. 

They're certainly not obligated to be a part of the process, by any means (but I haven't had anyone decline to be involved). We're not trying to offload the work onto the players, we're just offering as much opportunity as possible for the leaders and their associated organisations to help shape the future of it!

As I've said a few times, there's a huge number of moving parts, and while this is taking longer than we'd all like, we're trying to make these orgs sustainable for the next 17+ years of Achaea! 

Quote saved for when the next huge organizational change comes through realm (I bet it won't take 17 years!). 

People who are leading Houses now are only one small iota of the playerbase -- and  I can't grasp why their input is more important than anyone else's. Achaea, to me, is still operating in silos (Leaders, ACC, etc. - basically insular units) when collaboration and teamwork could and should be encouraged. Just my two cents.

Tael

Daeir said:

Tibitha said:

Please don't hurt me for this. It might be because I'm only HR3 but the Houses in Targossas seem a bit... pointless to me.

Im not actually sure what their purpose is supposed to be. Everyone seems to just identify as Targossasian and then oh yes im also in this House.

I mean I guess the point is supposed to be a concentration of combat knowledge but half the combatants arent in the Dawnblade so it usually makes more sense to just discuss it with the guard.

It just feels, at this point,  as if the Houses could disappear overnight and not much would change. 

Like I said, I realise it may just be because im still only HR3

Pre-House Targossas whined and cried for months about not having Houses. Our playercount was not sustainable, our intake of new players simply did not persist and our city essentially remained the same group of two-dozen people for the better part of a year with no significant change.

Nowadays, we have the fluidity that one expects from a city and have a constant stream of novices and newer players which figuratively and literally breathe life into a city. Even if the Houses themselves seem to be a "pinned on" aspect of the Targossian identity, they are still an important part of the city in a logistical sense if nothing else.

I've said this a few times now, but I think the main issue we have is that 3 Houses is too many. The Luminai could have easily assumed the sermon/spiritual aspect of the Harbingers as a front for their spy shit and keeping in tune with their historical roots. I love the bingers to death (mostly because I had a hand in making it, not gonna lie), but I really do feel like they sort of don't need to exist all that much.

I also feel like the Dawnguard should have just turned into a House and kept the same name. Dawnguard, Dawnblades.. Why the distinction? Why not just keep the same clan we've had since the city started and turn it into a House proper? Now we just have this system where there's Dawnguard titles related to the war ministry and then there's a House which has military titles related to the uh.. war/military House-which-is-tied-with-the-ministry-anyway thing. Still don't understand the rationale behind that beyond not explicitly limiting military activity to the Dawnblades, but that wouldn't happen anyway even if the two were consolidated in the first place because of how the city ethos works as a whole.

If it were my call to make, I'd merge the harbingers under the Luminai name and consolidate the Dawnguard/Dawnblades together into a single unit and have them responsible for both teaching and being the combatants that they are on a city level, which is what I feel like the whole thing was supposed to be but isn't because of things.

Woah. That escaped me a little bit.

I've been playing in Targossas since coming back and I think all of this is pretty apparent from the get-go too. I immediately understood what the difference was between the Dawnblade and the other two houses. I still don't entirely understand what the difference between the Luminai and the Harbingers is supposed to be - they both mention information, they both mention non-combat stuff, they both mention spreading the faith, I guess the Luminai just do it slightly more sneakily? And then there's sort of some merchanty stuff shoehorned into the Luminai? And it took me about three days to even realize that the Dawnguard and Dawnblade were different things.

I don't know why there is such intense resistance to just splitting cities into two houses, one for combatants and one for non-coms. It feels like we're avoiding that division just for the sake of avoiding it. In reality, it's a very useful division (outside of Cyrene anyway, which has a non-com population and theming that makes multiple non-com houses sensible). And it doesn't preclude people in the non-com houses from also being combatants - like you said, it tells them who to talk to if they want to learn. To venture a little bit afield, the situation reminds me of League of Legends, where the developers spend years insisting that they didn't want to do anything to "reinforce the metagame" mechanically. And you know what? Pretty much the moment they gave up on that, the game improve tremendously because they were able to make design choices that accorded with how people actually played the game. Did they lose some theoretical flexibility in the way people played it? Sure. But virtually no one was playing it in those roles already - that's what the existence of a "metagame" already meant.

Returning to the Targossas houses: the Dawnguard raises a whole other issue which is, I think, supremely underappreciated - "test" bloat. One of the things that has historically been a problem for Achaea is interlocking organisations with separate advancement tracks and extended, formalized training tiers. Everyone in charge of novices gets excited and tries to make the most detailed training program they can, mostly because they have the power to do so (hand someone a hammer and I guarantee they're going to add more nails than they remove). Very few people think about the repercussions and try to cut back on the training programs.

But since lower ranks tend to be determined by fixed lists of requirements, having separate organizations like the Dawnblade and Dawnguard means you end up with city and house and Dawnguard requirements that just end up being tedious when taken together. It significantly contributes to a sort of beaurocratic hell (a hell which Targossas has many other symptoms of too, particularly in the novice program that requires tons of what are essentially "checkins" where a single person is responsible for "approving" things, leading to constant waiting for that person to come online).

And, as I have observed from playing as HoN to three houses (multiple times each) in the past, this is really bad for player retention: it isn't just that the tests are tedious (though they often are), or that they require lengthy waiting periods (though we've gotten rid of explicit waiting periods for the most part, this is what having to wait for a specific person to come online and respond amounts to), it's that it gets to the point where new players have spent so much time fulfilling these rigid, highly formalized lists of requirements with "approval" at every step that when they're done with them, they have no idea how to play the game without some sort of external direction. I think this is a really underappreciated reason why so many people go dormant shortly after completing novicehood. And the typical response, lengthening the requirements ("people need more to do!") is a really myopic bandaid fix.

Having "more things to do" is a good way to keep people occupied in the short term, but the more things you have like that, the more precipitous the motivational falloff when people realize that in the long-term the game is about setting your own goals and driving your own narrative. A few of the old houses were starting to learn this, but my greatest fear for the new ones is that we're going to have to learn this lesson all over again, the hard way (again).

I suppose that was a bit of a digression, but the tl;dr is that I think you're even more right than you realise.

Bluef said:

Tecton said:

Achimrst said:

Sarapis said:

Bluef said:

Sarapis said:

Jacen said:

Can we hurry up with the Renaissance, so we can get through this awkward IC/OOC phase, where some people post about it in House news, talk about it on public channels, at public places like Crossroads, and some people vehemently deny anything is happening at all?

I'm not directly involved in the Renaissance but I can tell you that the major thing making it go slowly right now is certain players in leadership positions being difficult or obstinate. Not going to name names, but they know who they are.

I'm at a loss for why entire cities (full of dozens of players) are being made to wait because of a handful who are "leaders." Maybe those being obstinate should simply be replaced, ie. named, shamed and voted out of "service." It's a game. Get on with the re-skinning of the Houses!

That is and remains an option, but as a last resort.

What I'm wondering is, why do you care what the leaders have to say? I mean it seems like redoing the houses is more of a game administrative thing then an IC thing right?

Because the players need to believe in the houses and what they stand for if there's going to be any chance of them thriving going forward. Being in their respective communities, they also have certain insights that we value, as with all feedback from our players. 

They're certainly not obligated to be a part of the process, by any means (but I haven't had anyone decline to be involved). We're not trying to offload the work onto the players, we're just offering as much opportunity as possible for the leaders and their associated organisations to help shape the future of it!

As I've said a few times, there's a huge number of moving parts, and while this is taking longer than we'd all like, we're trying to make these orgs sustainable for the next 17+ years of Achaea! 

Quote saved for when the next huge organizational change comes through realm (I bet it won't take 17 years!). 

People who are leading Houses now are only one small iota of the playerbase -- and  I can't grasp why their input is more important than anyone else's. Achaea, to me, is still operating in silos (Leaders, ACC, etc. - basically insular units) when collaboration and teamwork could and should be encouraged. Just my two cents.

Design by committee is extremely fraught in situations like this. It tends to drive everything in the most neutral, conservative, milquetoast direction available. In a sense, this was exactly the problem with Shallam - made all the worse by a longstanding history justifying design by committee and "everybody gets a voice".

And there's definitely something to be said for these groups: it would be a really terrible idea if we got rid of the ACC and just had average players trying to make combat balance decisions because regular players are frequently wrong about how the mechanics they want to change actually work, or about whether certain strategies have counters or not. Similarly, there's a lot to be said for leadership having experience with what sorts of changes actually function well in practice. The semi-leadership positions I was in taught me a lot - there are some ideas (which I imagine former Naga can attest to, having had the dubious pleasure of serving as my guinea pigs a few times) that sound great on paper, but just don't work well when you actually try them. There are concerns that only become apparent when you're actually faced with them - there are ideas that average players can put forward without realizing what a pain they are to actually put into practice for the leadership.

It's all well and good to talk about "collaboration and teamwork" in nebulous managerial terms, but, particularly in Achaea, I think it tends to be the case that small, circumscribed groups tend to produce the best results. I would always take one person's specific, interesting vision for an organisation, even if it isn't shared by everyone else, over a boring, greyish amalgamated averaging of the desires of the population.

I think it's been pretty universally true that every project I've ever worked on in Achaea has had an inverse relationship between the quality of the end-product and the size of the group involved.

Nim

Tael said:

And there's definitely something to be said for these groups: it would be a really terrible idea if we got rid of the ACC and just had average players trying to make combat balance decisions because regular players are frequently wrong about how the mechanics they want to change actually work,

To nitpick, with the player-driven method of gathering information, smallish player-base, and often lack of information gathering standards, it's not merely inevitable that the average player would be wrong, but practically designed that way.

Won't disagree that managing large groups of people giving input is both difficult and incredibly risky in general, of course, nor will I disagree that even with more transparent information, the average player would still be comparatively uninformed compared to a hardcore combatant. Just nitpicking.

Sarapis

Bluef said:

People who are leading Houses now are only one small iota of the playerbase -- and  I can't grasp why their input is more important than anyone else's. Achaea, to me, is still operating in silos (Leaders, ACC, etc. - basically insular units) when collaboration and teamwork could and should be encouraged. Just my two cents.

Collaboration with players is exactly what is slowing the Renaissance process down so much, as the more people that are involved in a decision-making process, the slower it goes. We could have simply dictated and gotten this done much more quickly. Adding more players to the mix would compound the problem. We involve the leaders because you, the collective playerbase, have elected them as your representatives in matters relating to Houses and Cities, which is what the Renaissance is about. 

Kakotas

Daslin said:

Can't wait for Ashtan's changes. I wanna be Ashuran again. Wait, I mean in the combat house?

Ashuran.

Wait you mean we get to blow up Ashtan next? I'm on board for this...

Kakotas

Sarapis said:

Jacen said:

Can we hurry up with the Renaissance, so we can get through this awkward IC/OOC phase, where some people post about it in House news, talk about it on public channels, at public places like Crossroads, and some people vehemently deny anything is happening at all?

I'm not directly involved in the Renaissance but I can tell you that the major thing making it go slowly right now is certain players in leadership positions being difficult or obstinate. Not going to name names, but they know who they are.

Having worked with certain ones of those... I feel your pain...  Feel free to zap a few of them or re-enact the ten plagues till they manage to get their work done. Having re-written more of those files more times than I care to count it doesn't take that long...

As far as my 2 cents goes it was consultation of the playerbase that got shallam into the pickle because a few "leaders" hijacked everything in an attempt to fix problems that were mostly political (IE serpents class ethos) and ended up blowing up the whole thing. Would have been better to come from divine because at least then the city could have done the whole "it's from divine we have to obey it" bit that shallam was pre-disposed to.

Antreus

Shirszae said:

Addama said:

What's the difference between Virtuosi and Outriders?  It sounds like they do more or less the same thing.

Outriders = Exploration, History, Lore, Scholar activities, that sort of stuff
Virtuosi = Crafts, Art, Culture , Artistic activities, that sort of stuff

Sure, you could argue some things could fall on either side, but on the whole I think there is really very little overlapping because each has a distinct focus and feeling.

I would venture to say that the Outriders are lacking another purpose that isn't listed: acting as reconnaissance, intel, scouts, and huntsmen - not just explorers. As @Addama says, there is a bit of redundancy in those listed activities, there's overlap: they are all categorically liberal arts and culture. I'm all about the Lore Keeper aspect of this House, but I can't help but think the term implies a bit more from this house to touch on the ranging/ranger/support aspects it implies. 

Iocun

I don't see much of an overlap at all. One is about knowledge and exploration, the other about creativity. The relation between that isn't any closer than the relation to combat, as the third house focus.

Trilliana

There may be some overlap, but not from the Virtuosi. We are strictly arts and crafting. There's clans that the city has to allow for overlap, to create more of a sense of community (because there's crafters in the other Houses! There's scholars in other Houses! There's fighters in other Houses!) I really see it as something great because we are able to follow our passions. Plus it's funner!

Siduri

I've always considered the Targossian houses as a body:
1) Dawnblade is the fighting arms.
2) Harbingers is the creative mind and the mouth.
3) Luminai is the senses (ears and eyes), and the cartesian mind making sense of this information, relaying to both Dawnblade and Harbingers.

I see no overlap.

Tael

Siduri said:

I've always considered the Targossian houses as a body:
1) Dawnblade is the fighting arms.
2) Harbingers is the creative mind and the mouth.
3) Luminai is the senses (ears and eyes), and the cartesian mind making sense of this information, relaying to both Dawnblade and Harbingers.

I see no overlap.

While a neat theoretical division, I question the extent to which that is accurate in practice.

In reality, people don't need nor generally make use of intermediaries for information. There has always been a desire for organisations that function as "information brokers" in the game, but I have never, ever seen it work ever. And I say this having been a fairly prominent member of the Naga, one of the only organisations where we actually got people who were extremely dedicated to and very good at gaining access to secret information (to the extent that that's possible when there are so many iron-clad ways to defend against spying in Achaea) for real-life years.

We have telepathic communication. We have relatively small communities. The game just doesn't provide a situation where anyone actually needs an "information and logistics division", even if that would be fun to roleplay.

And it is fun to roleplay, which is why people should absolutely be free to do so. But it isn't the sort of thing to build an entire house around. In fact, I would go so far as to say it functions best as exactly the sort of thing that Daeir suggested, a seedy RP underside to an organisation like his combined Harbingers+Luminai.

Siduri

@Tael : I dare to disagree. Because you do not have clearance to read the Luminai reports does not mean they do not exist, or that they are not passed on and used by the leaders of the City and of the Houses.

Tael

Huh. I'll be interested to hear how sustainable that ends up being.

We tried to do it in the Naga and we had a number of people with frankly pathological amounts of patience dedicated to gathering and disseminating intelligence and we pretty much universally came to the conclusion that it just wasn't very useful or very viable for anything but RP, which is why we mostly focused the house on other things and just let people who were into that do it largely on their own (though of course we rewarded them handsomely when they succeeded). I can think of a couple of times where we found out something that was actually useful that other people in the city didn't know about already, but only a couple, in the span of probably something like five or six real-life years. And when people in the city tried to approach us for information the answer was essentially always "if you don't know about it, we probably don't know about it either".

More importantly, even if it does work, it seems like a questionable basis for an entire house. It seems like it would have worked much better as a secretive sub-organisation (and, honestly, I think it would have allowed for more compelling RP for the preachy religious house to essentially be a front for a shady information-gathering sub-organisation).

But oh well, glad that people are happy with it I suppose. That's obviously what matters in the end.

Kakotas

I'm actually looking forward to joining outriders as soon as I can. It's fun but I will say that style of house requires a more mature and established character to play or a curious one.

Bluef

Tael said:

Design by committee is extremely fraught in situations like this. It tends to drive everything in the most neutral, conservative, milquetoast direction available. In a sense, this was exactly the problem with Shallam - made all the worse by a longstanding history justifying design by committee and "everybody gets a voice".
And there's definitely something to be said for these groups: it would be a really terrible idea if we got rid of the ACC and just had average players trying to make combat balance decisions because regular players are frequently wrong about how the mechanics they want to change actually work, or about whether certain strategies have counters or not. Similarly, there's a lot to be said for leadership having experience with what sorts of changes actually function well in practice. The semi-leadership positions I was in taught me a lot - there are some ideas (which I imagine former Naga can attest to, having had the dubious pleasure of serving as my guinea pigs a few times) that sound great on paper, but just don't work well when you actually try them. There are concerns that only become apparent when you're actually faced with them - there are ideas that average players can put forward without realizing what a pain they are to actually put into practice for the leadership.

It's all well and good to talk about "collaboration and teamwork" in nebulous managerial terms, but, particularly in Achaea, I think it tends to be the case that small, circumscribed groups tend to produce the best results. I would always take one person's specific, interesting vision for an organisation, even if it isn't shared by everyone else, over a boring, greyish amalgamated averaging of the desires of the population.

I think it's been pretty universally true that every project I've ever worked on in Achaea has had an inverse relationship between the quality of the end-product and the size of the group involved

I'm not actively advocating for getting rid of the ACC or any other silo operating in Achaea - but it is an outdated mode of work process that constantly hinders, rather than promotes, innovation in industries and organizations from academia to gaming. The Renaissance is only one example of a way that silos are not working exceptionally well in Achaea. 

Cross-collaboration works well when there is a common goal established by leadership (not the cross-functional teams), and when leadership then motivates and incentivizes achieving results toward that goal. Not being in Leaders anymore (an ever-growing population in Achaea of ex-Leaders does exist) I have no idea if or how well this is happening. To me, that's part of the problem. Whether it's House leaders acting on behalf of an entire city's populace, or the ACC working on behalf of all players eveyrwhere, there is some negative interaction going on between the Achaean silos and other groups/individuals in the game (as evidenced by this thread and others).

IMO this demonstrates a lack of alignment with the overall game strategy of Achaea as a whole: The Dreams of Divine Lands where you can become anything, grow as a player, etc. has been stagnated for the last RL year or so while we awaited the completion of the Renaissance. Example: In some cities there is no reason to join a House or gain House rank because everyone knows that everything is about to be dismantled and re-skinned (and it's been this way for quite some time).

In short, I'm not an expert on how it could be applied to Achaea or the gaming industry as a whole, but I think a great first start would be to give everyone access to the same data and information. This discourages information hoarding, and creates a gaming culture where everyone is on the same page about what the end goals are and what may lie ahead, so further investment - both personally financially - is further encouraged. 

Cooper

When you are no longer a leader, you are removed from the leaders.

Example: when I stopped being a leader, I was removed as I was not an active leader.

You have absolutely no evidence of anything you're talking about - it's clear you're just bitter about not being involved at a higher level than you are. Instead of calling those organizations out, improve yourself so you can join again.

Bluef

@Cooper where is the bitterness in anything I wrote? I have worked with several organizations to break down silos impeding cross-functionality in my RL. I was making an observation about issues I see in Achaea. If you disagree, then disagree. But don't make it personal.

Cooper

"but it is an outdated mode of work process that constantly hinders, rather than promotes"

"The Renaissance is only one example of a way that silos are not working exceptionally well in Achaea."

"IMO this demonstrates a lack of alignment with the overall game strategy of Achaea as a whole"

It's nothing personal.

Again, you provided no proof other than your personal bitterness about not being a leader anymore.

Bluef

Cooper said:

"but it is an outdated mode of work process that constantly hinders, rather than promotes"

I could probably cite dozens of articles from credible sources that support this assertion. But to save myself the the effort, just try Googling "Silos" AND any other term related to innovation, cross-functionality, or collaboration in organizations and you can peruse them at your leisure.

"The Renaissance is only one example of a way that silos are not working exceptionally well in Achaea."

I already mentioned the ACC as one silo in Achaea. Leaders is obviously another. Any House that develops a serious clique has seen the results of an informal silo take shape as well. I suppose I could take the time to make a list of all silos potentially in existence in Achaea but since I don't think you're really responding out of interest in a discussion, I'm not sure I see the point in doing so.

"IMO this demonstrates a lack of alignment with the overall game strategy of Achaea as a whole"

If players are supposed to be able to be anything, do anything, and become anything - yet the culture of your organization IC is that there's no need to rush toward any goal because of the Renaissance, yes, I think that reveals a bit of an alignment problem with the game's famous tagline, if nothing else. As for overall game strategy, it can't be a positive to have someone new join the game amid a year-long culture of "We don't know what's next but everything is changing."

It's nothing personal.

How you can get anything personal from what I just wrote, in a very non-personal way, is beyond me. Bluef isn't at all interested in becoming an organizational leader; her RP is very much about the freedom of the rogue life. I have other characters that engage in orgs and hold leadership positions when I feel like RPing that way of life. Frankly, I think you're projecting. 

Again, you no proof other than your personal bitterness about not being a leader anymore.

Bitterness connotates anger or resentment. Bluef had an amazing time being a leader of an org when she was one. She helped get a zillion things accomplished for the orgs she worked with IC. Neither she IC nor I OOC are embittered about any of that.

Jukilian

I'm confused. Don't silos hold grain?

Vayne

Goodbye thread.

Amarillys

Bluef said:
 As for overall game strategy, it can't be a positive to have someone new join the game amid a year-long culture of "We don't know what's next but everything is changing."

Okay, I get I'm probably not the every-newb you're referring to here, but I want to comment as a person who came in to exactly that. I love it! I also am so glad it is not everyone making the choices but a small group of Achaean Leaders. I think it's a bigger turn off for newcomers to jump in and suddenly be asked 'So what kind of game do you want this to be?' rather than learning what kind of game it is and learning how to grow and play in that environment. As for the big changes it is going through, that is all the more exciting because we get to be here for the history, and though we aren't shaping it per say, we are able to be the first to try out new places and graduate from new houses and we have as much of a chance as nearly anyone to be the first big thing in these houses because no one else is! That's an incredible opportunity that I am so happy I got to be apart of because honestly I may not have stuck around so long if everything was so subdivided into the old cliques. As it stands, I already feel like I'm running against a wall sometimes trying to get certain people to notice me because they have been around so long they have more to worry about than the stupid little newbie who wants to be someone. It's not their fault they have their clique or their family. But it would be so much worse if I was trying this in organisations that have been around for years. As for your point about everyone being whatever they want, whoever they want. The tagline of the game? If you want to be a leader, you have to work for it. If you want to shape the game, you have to earn it. Otherwise, everyone can do it and there is no peak to climb and it just becomes boring and not-special and that? That is not a game I want to play.

This isn't an attack or anything, I kinda sorta idolize you, Bluef, just from a lot of the cool things I've read about you, so please don't be upset at me, it is just my thoughts on the stuff.

Viva la Renaissance!

Bluef

Amarillys said:

Bluef said:
 As for overall game strategy, it can't be a positive to have someone new join the game amid a year-long culture of "We don't know what's next but everything is changing."

Okay, I get I'm probably not the every-newb you're referring to here, but I want to comment as a person who came in to exactly that. I love it! I also am so glad it is not everyone making the choices but a small group of Achaean Leaders. I think it's a bigger turn off for newcomers to jump in and suddenly be asked 'So what kind of game do you want this to be?' rather than learning what kind of game it is and learning how to grow and play in that environment. As for the big changes it is going through, that is all the more exciting because we get to be here for the history, and though we aren't shaping it per say, we are able to be the first to try out new places and graduate from new houses and we have as much of a chance as nearly anyone to be the first big thing in these houses because no one else is! That's an incredible opportunity that I am so happy I got to be apart of because honestly I may not have stuck around so long if everything was so subdivided into the old cliques. As it stands, I already feel like I'm running against a wall sometimes trying to get certain people to notice me because they have been around so long they have more to worry about than the stupid little newbie who wants to be someone. It's not their fault they have their clique or their family. But it would be so much worse if I was trying this in organisations that have been around for years. As for your point about everyone being whatever they want, whoever they want. The tagline of the game? If you want to be a leader, you have to work for it. If you want to shape the game, you have to earn it. Otherwise, everyone can do it and there is no peak to climb and it just becomes boring and not-special and that? That is not a game I want to play.

This isn't an attack or anything, I kinda sorta idolize you, Bluef, just from a lot of the cool things I've read about you, so please don't be upset at me, it is just my thoughts on the stuff.

Viva la Renaissance!

No worries. I'm glad this has been your experience. Most of my others characters have not yet been impacted by the full brunt of the Renaissance. They've been waiting around for a long time for it to come and had to struggle against an expanding culture of apathy in some instances. Overall, I agree with you: The Renaissance will be a good thing in the various ways you describe it. I just dislike the process being used for it, but that's probably because my personal OOC workflow cringes at any kind of entirely top down approach to change in an organization.