Constructive Feedback

[stragen]

As part of interaction that occurs as during the playing of the game Layonara, there is a need for feedback, to understand what is being done well and what can be done better.

I would like to encourage both players and GMs to use constructive feedback, when a reponse is needed, or even when one isn't.  Constructive feedback should:
  1) Acknowledge what has been done well, with reference to specific detail
  2) Highlight problems again with reference to specific detail
  3) Suggest alternative ways to move forward, or improve on the problem areas.

This can be applied to everything from character submissions to quest feedback.  

Here is an example of this on Dezza's quest Cattle Rustlers (the numbers are just for the example).
[yellow]
(1) Dezza always runs good quests so he has a high level of expectation to maintain.  The quest was targeted at low level characters, so there was a large crowd.  This was handled smoothly as Dezza also had a second DM running in the background to assist with the load.  Through the use of NPC interactions Dezza manged to keep a large group of rogues and chaotic characters organised and interested, this was well done.  Again Dezza managed to live up to his reputation.
(2) At one section there was a locked door that lead to another dungeon.  This dungeon area was not part of the quest.  Dezza mentioned this during the game, but due to the large number of characters talking some players missed this message.  These characters proceeded to pick the lock and briefly entered the non-existant section.  
(3) A possible method to improve on the this miscommunication would be to have DM group messages in another colour.  Alternatively the lock could have been made impossible for the characters to successfully pick.  Finally, we as players have a duty to pay attention to the text stream, and minimise our chatter when in large quest parties.

I would like to add the the low level quest was much appreciated.  I hope to see more of these short - fun one off quests in the future.
[/yellow]
Again I would encourage players and GMs to use constructive feedback, when feedback needs to be given.  Yes it takes more time, then a one line; Yes/No/Not Good Enough.  But it shows respect for the person receiving the feedback.  There are numerous other excellent examples of constructive feedback already within the forums.  Constructive feedback appears to be part of the culture of Layonara.  However, I still feel that it is useful to explicitly state need and format of constructive feedback.

Cheers,

Stragen

[Dorganath]

Wow! Thanks for the thought you put into this. These are good suggestions and it's good to see.
  Interesting suggestion on the message color, although I'm not sure what kind of control we have over that, unless we use some mechanism to make the message appear in the combat window which many people close. The only current option is to utilize shouts, which are only appropriate when there's no one else on the server who is not a part of the quest. If the quest is run on a server with other people not involved with the quest, shouts are disruptive and therefore we tend not to use them. The other option is tells of course, but that can become tedious if many people need to hear it.
  On the lock thing...also a good suggestion. It wasn't until just recently that (Bioware 1.67 release) we gained access, through scripting, to the ability to change the DC and other properties of locks. Prior to that, we could only make such changes through the toolset, and thus there really was no way in-game to handle that. Now we have access to features which would allow such a change to happen in-game....the new chest/door system I put in with this last update is one result. This is surely one thing to consider.
  You make a very good point again, it is the responsibility of the players to "listen" when GMs are speaking, describing or whatever. I don't know anything about the quest that prompted this, the party make-up or the circumstances, but from the perspective of a GM, my experience is that as the group size grows beyond a certain number (and that number depends greatly on the group), the chaos level can increase rapidly. The more experienced players tend to understand this, and it is a bit of a learned skill. Nevertheless, it's crucially important.
  Once again, thanks for the thought you put into this post and your comments!

[ttdavet]

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this quick lower level DM event.  I rarely have the chance to get in on the DM'ed stuff so I had a blast.  I thought the players did a great job and there were a lot of them so not surprizing that a few missed the fact that the "door" wasn't really there.  Thanks for the good job DMing. No constructive feedback as I am not really qualified to give any and I see Layonara (donations not withstanding) as the proverbial "gift horse".  Thanks

[Tazmanius]

Also enjoyed this event..wish there were more like the one Dezza ran.

Would be good if there were regular sessions like this..small scale or even a small continuing series of events..that build up to the bigger events etc.

From observation it appears that most of the events or event series are either aimed at the higher level characters or are aimed at the same persons...i.e those returning...thus in most cases newer players are not getting as much chance to participate in these vignettes or story series.

A solution..if it could be done would be...to assign some of the DM's to specific level groups..i.e adventuring up to say fifth level is pretty easy to accomplish..but after that .it can be hard sometimes to find groups and companions.Perhaps have assignments for DM's to prepare and run small events/series...as their time allows based on a level range...5-8/9-12 etc..and try and have a target of say 1 per week..plus possibly an ongoing series event as well.?
Also noticed that a large proportion of events take place US time...and not many on Euro meaning those of us in this timezone either have to try and stay awake into the very early morning...or miss out altogether..would be nice to see some Dm's assigned to create events based on the timezones also ..so all players get a chance to experience events.

Another way or two of spreading and sharing the events amongst players would be to start being more definitive on level limits..i.e have a harder cutoff rule on some events so that once a character is over a certain level they are forced to move on to other pursuits..i.e natural wastage..this would allow others to fill the gaps in long running series...and for those that say it's unfair..well..it's far easier for longer running and experienced characters to get into pick up groups..CDQ's and such..as they have been around longer and have more friends.

On a final note..when NWN 2 Is implemented..are we still going to see the monsters etc gradiated as they currently are..i.e..Mistone/Rilara/Dregar/Xantril..i.e difficulty progression..or will it be more realistic with monsters of all levels spread out across the continents and thus having a more balanced eco/food chain?

By having this system..more lower level or small groups could actually have a chance of travelling around and exploring with a chance of success..

[Dorganath]

Thanks for your comments. Some replies:
 

Tazmanius - 7/17/2006  5:45 AM
  From observation it appears that most of the events or event series are either aimed at the higher level characters or are aimed at the same persons...i.e those returning...thus in most cases newer players are not getting as much chance to participate in these vignettes or story series.

 Most long-running series are still generally open to new players, assuming there is space (per GM discretion) , the new characters meet the level requirements (if present) and they're not "stuck" somewhere (which happens now and then). Also, in many cases, fun little one-off and/or impromptu adventures turn into at least a small quest series as they develop lives of their own, players get enthusiastic about it, etc. Lastly, many times a short series can end up being extended beyond its original design due to player/character actions (for positive or negative). I can think of several quest series that started as just some impromtu thing or a short one-off quest, and several quests intended as a series that have been extended far beyond the original vision.    

A solution..if it could be done would be...to assign some of the DM's to specific level groups..i.e adventuring up to say fifth level is pretty easy to accomplish..but after that .it can be hard sometimes to find groups and companions.Perhaps have assignments for DM's to prepare and run small events/series...as their time allows based on a level range...5-8/9-12 etc..and try and have a target of say 1 per week..plus possibly an ongoing series event as well.?

 Quest GMs here fall into two main categories: Full-time and part-time. Full-time GMs are expected to run 20 hours of quests per month. Part-time GMs are expected to run 10 hours of quests per month. The vast majority of our GMs are part-time, as most of us have RL obligations and other things that keep our time limited. While this particular suggestion may have a certain degree of merit, it actually creates a potentially greater burden upon GMs (again, mostly part-time) to run an independent quest per week PLUS an on-going series PLUS handle CDQ requests and WLDQ requests for those GMs handling such. Most quests, especially CDQs and WLDQs take a lot of planning on the GM's part, and most of our part-time GMs are already running more than 10 hours/month just trying to keep up.
  It's a good suggestion to have quests for all level ranges for any given month, and I'll note that often times quests do not have level requirements, though those that do have them if for no other reason than the inherent danger level. Assigning particular levels to particular GMs, however, would limit the freedom of GMs to run the kinds of quests they want to run, and that kind of thing tends to lead to burn out and just general frustration on the GM side.
   

Also noticed that a large proportion of events take place US time...and not many on Euro meaning those of us in this timezone either have to try and stay awake into the very early morning...or miss out altogether..would be nice to see some Dm's assigned to create events based on the timezones also ..so all players get a chance to experience events.

 A recent analysis of quest times showed that the US time zone "prime-time" was actually the most under-represented time slot, behind both GMT prime-time and Australian prime-time. GMs here are volunteers, and as I said we all have RL obligations that have to come first. We can't mandate that GMs cover a particular time slot. They have to be able to run quests in times where they are available.    

Another way or two of spreading and sharing the events amongst players would be to start being more definitive on level limits..i.e have a harder cutoff rule on some events so that once a character is over a certain level they are forced to move on to other pursuits..i.e natural wastage..this would allow others to fill the gaps in long running series...and for those that say it's unfair..well..it's far easier for longer running and experienced characters to get into pick up groups..CDQ's and such..as they have been around longer and have more friends.

 This idea would not be fair to a character who, for example, spent months working in a long-running quest and through normal progression suddenly found himself/herself too high of a level to participate any longer. Granted, a level 18 character should not bejoining a quest specified for levels 1-8, but ultimately, that's at the GM's discretion. As I mentioned above, many series don't have level requirements at all. The only limit tends to be a party size limit, and those types of limits are put in place at GM discretion, as the larger a party gets, the more difficult it is to manage.    

On a final note..when NWN 2 Is implemented..are we still going to see the monsters etc gradiated as they currently are..i.e..Mistone/Rilara/Dregar/Xantril..i.e difficulty progression..or will it be more realistic with monsters of all levels spread out across the continents and thus having a more balanced eco/food chain?      By having this system..more lower level or small groups could actually have a chance of travelling around and exploring with a chance of success..

 Can't say really, as much of what will happen if and when we move to NWN2 has yet to be decided. Our goal is to have a much more properly scaled experience for all classes and all levels, from level 1 all the way up through level 40 (even though 40th won't even be possible initially) from the first day. As for the relative difficulty and distribution of monsters, I can't really even speculate on that, though there's a certain logic to breaking things up, however artificially, by continent/server. All I do know is that the next version of Layonara will be significantly different in a lot of ways

[Talan Va'lash]

re: Quests for certain level groups
 
  In my experience over a couple years here, the "average target level" of quests being run around a certian point in time tends to fluctuate and at times be a bit streaky, which is probably due to continuing series making certain "target level areas" seem more represented.
 
  In simpler terms, it seems to me like there will be streaks when many quests and quest series are targeted at lower levels, streaks where more are for mid levels and streaks where there are more for high levels.
 
  oh and lately if you look at the calendar there have indeed been a lot more gmt and aussie time zone quests than US timezone quests.
 
  just as an aside (not really meant to make any point or prove anything, I was just thinking about it) I think the only "level 20+ required" quest ever run on layo was Leanther's finale at the bloodwell.

[minerva]

Fri July 28th - Candy From a Baby - levels 1-9 ..GMT...mid afternoon....

[Tazmanius]

Ok..points taken..

But a couple more things to throw into the pot...

1/Quest series...how about after current series are done with..that a character can only be involved in one currently running series of quests.Individual quests etc. are ok..but only involvement in one series...as isn't it a bit unrealistic to be adventuring..doing other quests and involved in say 2 or more series at once..that could effectively be dragging a character to distant points.
This would also allow for more people to get involved series..

2/Another option for above..where certain numbers are restricted..would be ..say to allow..say 3-5 new questers to become involved ina series..with returnees...being the rest and rolling for involvement..another way of allowing more people a chance to become involved in submersive quests etc.and reflecting the situation where many often are needed to get all things done.

3/Noticed a comment on power-levelling in some thread or other..so
How about..restricting the level difference that people can adventure with...not ideal but one way to stop say a level 3 character tagging along with a bunch of level 10 pluses and feeding off their work.This could be a ruling...and rather than tie up a GM or lot's of GM's..random checks could be performed..with penalties such as xp loss or such for parties breaking the ruling.Would be more of an honour system than a hard and fast rule.

[Talan Va'lash]

Tazmanius - 7/23/2006  2:47 AM
    3/Noticed a comment on power-levelling in some thread or other..so How about..restricting the level difference that people can adventure with...not ideal but one way to stop say a level 3 character tagging along with a bunch of level 10 pluses and feeding off their work.This could be a ruling...and rather than tie up a GM or lot's of GM's..random checks could be performed..with penalties such as xp loss or such for parties breaking the ruling.Would be more of an honour system than a hard and fast rule.  
 

 
  Average party level is taken into account by the xp system. The farther you are from the majority of the group the more your xp will be downsized.
 
  This is to addess the exact situation you mention and is a lot better than how its handled on some servers where theres a hard rule that any member of a party can be no more thn 5 level from any other.. which is pretty ooc and very annoying when you're trying to party and leads to a lot of ooc "wht lvl r u?" ... not that people would write it like that here hehe.

[Dorganath]

Tazmanius - 7/23/2006  3:47 AM   1/Quest series...how about after current series are done with..that a character can only be involved in one currently running series of quests.Individual quests etc. are ok..but only involvement in one series...as isn't it a bit unrealistic to be adventuring..doing other quests and involved in say 2 or more series at once..that could effectively be dragging a character to distant points.   This would also allow for more people to get involved series..

 I see what you're saying here, and in most cases, this is self-limiting due to many factors. There's exceptions of course, as with all things.
  Though one thing to consider is that suppose a quest that was intended to be a one-time (or short-running) quest turned into a long series due to player interest, actions etc. Is it fair if one particular player/character who was very involed (and perhaps important) in the first couple installments has to leave the quest due to a completely OOC consideration?
  Time is very funny in Layonara because of the massive disconnect between RL time and game time...in some cases, questers go into a "time bubble" where sequential weekly RL sessions actually occur without break in terms of game time. Such situations are typically closed for continuity reasons but also tend to not last for the length of the quest series.    

2/Another option for above..where certain numbers are restricted..would be ..say to allow..say 3-5 new questers to become involved ina series..with returnees...being the rest and rolling for involvement..another way of allowing more people a chance to become involved in submersive quests etc.and reflecting the situation where many often are needed to get all things done.

 This is often the case, actually. One current series I can think of in particular is doing just that. Regular and involved characters are assured a spot, with the remaining spots being open for new people who want to join....up to whatever maximum the GM designates. In most cases, GMs don't mind new people joining their quests at all, assuming there's room and that the players wish to participate. In my personal experience, the resistance to new people becoming involved in a series comes from the players/characters already involved than from the GMs.    

3/Noticed a comment on power-levelling in some thread or other..so   How about..restricting the level difference that people can adventure with...not ideal but one way to stop say a level 3 character tagging along with a bunch of level 10 pluses and feeding off their work.This could be a ruling...and rather than tie up a GM or lot's of GM's..random checks could be performed..with penalties such as xp loss or such for parties breaking the ruling.Would be more of an honour system than a hard and fast rule.

 What Talan said is essentially correct. XP is given out on a bell-curve like profile, centered around a "sweet spot". The further away from that spot your character is (above or below), the less XP you'll get as a result. A level 3 being dragged along to Xantril by a group of level 20+ characters, besides being stupidly dangerous, is actually not going to result in a significant amount of XP being given to that level 3 character.
  Further, we already do discourage disproportionate groupings, though we do need to allow for RP reasons for such groupings. Rest assured, we do observe people doing exactly what you describe, and intervene when we see something horribly disproportionate for no other reason but to soak XP. One thing we've observed more often than we care to is a lower-level character (but high enough to gain some benefit) staying invisible and out-of-reach and not contributing a single thing to combat, party buffs and generally not doing anything to add to the party. We've seen this, and we've spoken to the involved parties about it.
  So this already exists, and it's not a hard "rule" but a general guideline that we want people to respect.

[Tazmanius]

good points but..I think limiting characters to one quest series per character..not person(i.e they could have several characters involved in several quest series)..would be more realistic as such would occupy a lot of a characters time..and also..
Would allow a wider number of people to experience GM quests...and thus make the Layo experience better for more than a select few...

[Weeblie]

Tazmanius - 7/23/2006  5:09 PM

good points but..I think limiting characters to one quest series per character..not person(i.e they could have several characters involved in several quest series)..would be more realistic as such would occupy a lot of a characters time..and also..
Would allow a wider number of people to experience GM quests...and thus make the Layo experience better for more than a select few...

I disagree. On the quest serie that I've spent most time on, only once did the GM say "You are too many. Roll please!". So, in my opinion, the only effect a rule like this would have is to kill some quest series due to the lack of players...

But, of course, I'm not playing in the peak-hours, so dunno about quest series running at those times.

[Tazmanius]

why would it kill off quest series?It would certainly give more chance for more people to experience the thrill and depth of Layonara on GM run events..rather than the usual suspects being on every quest...
It is also unrealistic for characters to be doing lots of series at once..such demanding quests require a lot of time and effort by the characters...then again some just see them as free xp..and down the road free items I suppose..

[Pibemanden]

Tazmanius - 7/23/2006  7:38 PM

why would it kill off quest series?It would certainly give more chance for more people to experience the thrill and depth of Layonara on GM run events..rather than the usual suspects being on every quest...
It is also unrealistic for characters to be doing lots of series at once..such demanding quests require a lot of time and effort by the characters...then again some just see them as free xp..and down the road free items I suppose..

Erm... If more come to quests they would experience it, sadly not many go on quests that is why you see characters like Storold(Took my own character as an example) are involved in 5 series. Only on one of these the party was too big(At least when Storold got into it).

[Weeblie]

Tazmanius - 7/23/2006  7:38 PM

why would it kill off quest series?It would certainly give more chance for more people to experience the thrill and depth of Layonara on GM run events..rather than the usual suspects being on every quest...
It is also unrealistic for characters to be doing lots of series at once..such demanding quests require a lot of time and effort by the characters...then again some just see them as free xp..and down the road free items I suppose..

A lot of people who attend one quest serie also attends others. And, as quite a few quest series aren't "full", I doubt we'll see more "new people" on those quest series just because the previous attendants left (because, they choosed to attend another one instead). No new people + Old people leaving = Dead quest... Or something...

I don't see the problem for a character to be on two series at the same time. I mean, that would be like saying "a character who's on a quest series shouldn't be played when he or she's not on the quest". The only problematic situation I can see is if the party is in some unreachable place (like, some unknown island far away). In that case, it's usually handled using a "time bubble" as Dorganath mentioned. Otherwise... Well, the characters aren't "questing" 24/7. They do have some sparetime too! Like the "he's at home, sleeping" explanation of why someone is skipping one or two sessions.

Oh, as for free XP. I believe that most people who attends the quest series would be fine without any XP reward at all. Actually, one gets XP at level 12 to 18 faster by bashing than by questing... And, the risk of dying on a quest is (usually) far greater than normal.

And, free items? Erh... I must say that the number of items given out on quests (unless plot quests, that is) are extremly limited (hm... actually, close to 0) and has most of the time only RP value (i.e. can't be used).

Quests are definitely the wrong way for people who just want better items/more levels.

[Dorganath]

Tazmanius - 7/23/2006  12:38 PM then again some just see them as free xp..and down the road free items I suppose..

 This is unfortunate, but yes, it does happen. As Weeblie kind of said, most people seem to be on quests for the enjoyment of it all and not for the XP...or the items, which are very, very rare....the exception being any fancy dropped items that may be obtained during combat. In reality though, such items are no different than what would be obtained by spending the same amount of time bashing.....and in fact, bashing is on the whole more profitable than questing...and we also know (based on recent observations) that it's possible for a mid-level character to earn 200K XP within a 24-hour period through adventuring alone...and of course that's not 24 hours of solid playing.
While some people see quests as free XP or an avenue to free items, GMs try to make sure that nothing is "free". In most cases, participation is strongly desired, and in some cases can negatively affect the outcome of quests.   The issue of space on quests does come up from time to time. The key limiting factor is not the number of "regulars" but the number of people that a GM feels comfortable running...or perhaps the number of people that makes sense to have. A heavily combat-oriented quest can actually go much smoother with a smaller group than it will with a group twice its size. In such cases, the GM typically leaves the decision up to the party, because too much chaos can be deadly, and each additional person adds to the chaos level....as well as lag. Oh RP-heavy quests, sometimes larger groups are allowed, as it's not as hard to manage, though sometimes people try to over-RP or chatter about unrelated things in large groups, which also tends to have negative effects. So, for one reason or the other, quest size gets limited. I mentioned before that I've seen more resistance from the players than the GMs related to new people joining a quest.
  And to echo Weeblie again, it's fairly rare that a regular series stays "full" for its entire length...from one week to the next, players may have RL issues that keep them away for one reason or the other, and that's true for regulars and those who join with they can. Looking at the calendar and counting names doesn't really mean that will be the situation come quest time.  
  The best advice I can give is to sign up and show up. Maybe you get turned away...but maybe you don't. If you just look at the sign-ups, then you'll never join any series, as you'll be intimidated by the list. You really don't know if you don't try, and I guess that's true for a lot of things.
  One last point, and I suppose I've been putting off actually mentioning this for fear of how it may sound, is that as GMs, we have plenty to do besides run quests, and we surely don't need to start policing who goes on what quests, following up with every potential participant before a quest to find out if they're on another series and if so if they intend to leave that series to join another, etc. It's too much work, too dependent on things that can change from day to day. In short, it's not overly practical to do so. We'll set level limits, party size limits, even go so far as to describe the type of quest to that we attract the right mix of people, but in the end, we try to accommodate as many players as we can.