Best Of
Re: Disappointment and Willow Trees
I'm grateful when people attempt to roleplay during 'combat' events like Domoths and Timequakes. Really good way to get members of an alliance in one room and talking! Avaris's reaction to seeing Caleb's favor had me worried! Hehe!
Gurashi
3
Re: Lusternia Chat Tabs - standalone
1.3, moves to using a GMCP event instead of a trigger for enabling GMCP communications. This should resolve an issue someone reported where if you QQ'ed and reconnected without restarting the profile it wouldn't capture the chat.
demonnic
1
Sulwh's Will
Ahhh, Sulwh's first real interaction with @Mysrai besides the Resin Child popping in at Muud and warbling! 
Sulwh
6
Re: Cloaking Gems (Again)
I second and support what Xenthos says here. I play a couple different IREs - currently, Aetolia and Lusternia, but I've nosed at Achaea too, briefly - and they seem so much fuller for having a large WHO list.
Olethea
3
Cloaking Gems (Again)
This topic keeps coming up repeatedly, so here's yet another thread on the cloaking gem! The gist of it is: New players come to Lusternia, see a QW/WHO that has just a handful of names on it, and think that the game's pretty empty despite there being a larger number actually present in the numbers below. Actually seeing that people are around would be a very good change. As such, here is a proposal.
1) WHO is expanded so that it works across all planes, like EWHO currently does, with the following limitations.
a. It does not show anyone in manses.
b. It does not show the room name of anyone not on the same plane (or possibly continent) as you are, only the character's name.
2) EWHO will continue to show the room names of anyone on a different plane/continent than you, and will still display manse rooms (ignoring rooms with a privacy gem, as it currently does). Thus it is still an upgraded version of WHO.
3) The cloaking gem will remove your location's room name from WHO and EWHO, displaying only your character name (just as if you were off-plane). If you are in a manse, the cloaking gem will remove you from the EWHO list entirely, as well.
* Optional addition: The cloaking gem has up to 1 to 2 hours of activation time per weave for a special effect. This effect will remove your name from WHO/EWHO (just as the cloaking gem currently does). This can be toggled on/off up until the total time is expended.
The final optional idea is for those individuals who state that sometimes they just want to log on and do dailies / poke at some things without actually being "around." This would hopefully help satisfy that need, while also making it something that is both an opt-in and expires so it's just not permanently left toggled on. I'm not sure it's needed myself, but I can see the appeal for something like that.
Xenthos
17
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
This whole 'prerogative' argument really bugs me, actually.
Let's say you have 3 kids, and you take them all to the arcade. You buy $10 worth of tokens, and give all of them to the oldest, Bob. You tell Bob that he has to win 100 prize tickets, or you're going to charge him 50x that $10 output in his allowance. When the other kids clamor for tokens, you tell them that it's Bob's prerogative what he wants to do with them. He can share or not, whatever, it's clearly his choice! But you've also designed the system in such a way to make sure that Bob isn't going to be likely to share, because he's likely to be penalized if he does.
Is this really Bob's "prerogative," or is the system just poorly designed in the first place?
Xenthos
1
Re: Truebie/Newbie Retention
The reason the game seems more empty is not so much due to gems, but, clans.
Having some actual mechanic for alliances and a dedicated channel for same would do far more to show activity than a list of people who are mostly silent. Not everyone who plays is seeking attention or wants it. Some people play the game to relax and unwind from the horrors of their day.
If you just want visibility expand the visibility of people in lists.
Having some actual mechanic for alliances and a dedicated channel for same would do far more to show activity than a list of people who are mostly silent. Not everyone who plays is seeking attention or wants it. Some people play the game to relax and unwind from the horrors of their day.
If you just want visibility expand the visibility of people in lists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steingrim(None) Blacktalon (h)Shadow Warden Commune Aide On No
Gabe(TW) Blacktalon (h)Shadow Warden On Yes
A commune member hides their presence and may answer questions when asked.
A commune member hides their presence and may answer questions when asked.
A commune member hides their presence and may answer questions when asked.
*******************************************************************************
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
I don't think you are understanding the intention of this thread.
This thread was to gather player input on what our potential goals should be. Not how to fix it, not how to solve the problem, but what players want to see in our game economy so that when we come up with a proposal, we come up with something that hits on what players in general want.
Obviously, you've seen varying ideas of what people want here, and it's all something we're taking into consideration, and trying to do our best to make the greatest amount of players happy with our end result.
So to answer your question - I don't know the answer to your questions here. I do think that if we want an economy that people can participate in and try to use to make gold etc, that some level of scarcity is needed, but I do not know the exact amount that is. It is one of the things we will be addressing and what we initially come up with may need further adjustment after it's been in place.
I've been pretty blunt that I think the current comm issues are primarily player-driven. There are tens of thousands of comms sitting in org stockpiles that are not being let out. I understand that they are not being let out because players are wary about comm generation and are trying to preserve them just in case, but it just shows that scarcity is also not something that you can put a number on and more factors come into play than just 'how many comms are in the game'. It's a multiple-faceted issue that can't be answered simply by throwing the numbers you seem to want on it.
This thread was to gather player input on what our potential goals should be. Not how to fix it, not how to solve the problem, but what players want to see in our game economy so that when we come up with a proposal, we come up with something that hits on what players in general want.
Obviously, you've seen varying ideas of what people want here, and it's all something we're taking into consideration, and trying to do our best to make the greatest amount of players happy with our end result.
So to answer your question - I don't know the answer to your questions here. I do think that if we want an economy that people can participate in and try to use to make gold etc, that some level of scarcity is needed, but I do not know the exact amount that is. It is one of the things we will be addressing and what we initially come up with may need further adjustment after it's been in place.
I've been pretty blunt that I think the current comm issues are primarily player-driven. There are tens of thousands of comms sitting in org stockpiles that are not being let out. I understand that they are not being let out because players are wary about comm generation and are trying to preserve them just in case, but it just shows that scarcity is also not something that you can put a number on and more factors come into play than just 'how many comms are in the game'. It's a multiple-faceted issue that can't be answered simply by throwing the numbers you seem to want on it.
Orael
1
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
I'm not really interested in opening a debate, the worst-off org has enough stockpile in their commodity reserves to upkeep their research objects for the next 1.75 years. Other orgs have enough reserve for closer to 5 years of upkeep. Each object has 3 different commodities you can upkeep with.
This doesn't account for other commodity uses and I've already acknowledged that commodity input needs addressing (which this revamp will accomplish) but this is why I'm saying it's primarily player-driven.
My statement was more in evidence that there isn't a simple answer to 'what level of scarcity is required' than it was to start a debate.
Edit: I did double-check that the numbers I see are the same numbers that org leaders see, and they are. It's Serenwilde's prerogative to choose how they want to deal with their commodities and research upkeep.
This doesn't account for other commodity uses and I've already acknowledged that commodity input needs addressing (which this revamp will accomplish) but this is why I'm saying it's primarily player-driven.
My statement was more in evidence that there isn't a simple answer to 'what level of scarcity is required' than it was to start a debate.
Edit: I did double-check that the numbers I see are the same numbers that org leaders see, and they are. It's Serenwilde's prerogative to choose how they want to deal with their commodities and research upkeep.
Orael
1
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
As I said, I'm not interested in debating this. I've acknowledged the main reasons why players are holding on to them and that we're going to take actions to address it.
Orael
2
(c) Iron Realms Entertainment 2012.