I voted no, but then got to thinking....in the beginning there were three guilds in each org, and (in Serenwilde anyway) they fell along the lines of body (warrior), mind (druid) and spirit (wiccan).
So I guess, if something like, merging the warriors and monks, and maybe the bards and wiccans/guardians, to get back down to three, that would be ok. I mean, we already have classflexed people with skills not of their guild.
I think it would be cool if the guilds were trimmed and combined differently for each org, based on lore and rp. It wouldn't be a sudden shift, but gradual, pushed by the admin, and flexible. Some cities could end up with 4 guilds, 3, 2, or even 1 depending on how it goes. Let the players shape their own future.
Class would have to be made separate from guilds, or perhaps guilds could choose what classes to accept.
If they would be static then I'd say we wouldn't want more than three per org, and for some that could even be pushing it a little and probably should be equal among all because... well players are liable to complain later about the imbalance, either those who got more or those who got less, both about others and potentially about themselves.
My brain is weird but for some reason I feel like i'd be annoyed if it was framed as mergers and things ended up being more... like the Serenguard teach Shofangi skills now or the Celestines have a nice new choir. But if you wiped out the guilds and then made the... Celestial Church? Which might be heavily influenced by the Celestines... i'd have less issues for some reason.
Even if we agree that there are toxic individuals who are allegedly driving droves of players away, I do think we have to address the elephant in the room here, which is that text games are a rather niche gaming community to begin with. That population starts out small. Achaea is big because it has been around forever. Aetolia had the advantage of the vampire interest boom. In general though, we're not World of Warcraft and we're never going to be. That's fine. I think Shuyin's point is to model Lusternia to best suit the audience that it currently has, and that's frankly not a bad suggestion.
I mean, it's true that we're a niche community but I think we're looking at it the wrong way if we're just going to say "well, we're always going to be small so let's appeal to a smaller group". A lot of our problems with player retention are from screw-ups on multiple fronts (I mean what even is going on with lusty right now? I feel like we need an intervention). That said, thinking it over, maybe merging a few guilds by combining some classes under the same umbrella might help, but I'd like to know why that would succeed when covenants didn't.
As much as I believe many guilds are struggling because of low population, I do not believe blowing up current ones to recreate new ones with new definitions is the best way to take this on. The players of each guild from the past until now have invested a lot in solidifying their identity/role. I'd rather we continue to work on the path of covenants, make it reach the point where each guild can guildfavour members of the other guilds, see each other's guild scrolls/news posts/logs, have cool covenant rituals (w/ benefits ). We can keep GLs,GAs, GCs of each guild as "class representatives" but maybe merge the protectors, security, undersec, secretaries and archivists(?). I think small adjustments would go a long way.
It's quite simple. Guilds work and I enjoy the conflict/loyalty roleplay they inspire. For example, as a Geomancer, I can see the other Mage guilds as 'rivals' or 'opponents', and play off their existence. Watering down this system would just promote sub-standard roleplay and a drop in standards.
The guild system is not the reason for low population, there are other aspects which need to be focused on to solve that (I say that as a Geomancer with average membership).
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I think it's funny that the votes are split along the PK crowd vs non PK crowd divide. Not that it means anything important, just an interesting trend in the voting.
I think it's funny that the votes are split along the PK crowd vs non PK crowd divide. Not that it means anything important, just an interesting trend in the voting.
Rivius voted no, and I voted yes.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
0
SylandraJoin Queue for Mafia GamesThe Last Mafia Game
Even if we agree that there are toxic individuals who are allegedly driving droves of players away, I do think we have to address the elephant in the room here, which is that text games are a rather niche gaming community to begin with. That population starts out small. Achaea is big because it has been around forever. Aetolia had the advantage of the vampire interest boom. In general though, we're not World of Warcraft and we're never going to be. That's fine. I think Shuyin's point is to model Lusternia to best suit the audience that it currently has, and that's frankly not a bad suggestion.
I mean, it's true that we're a niche community but I think we're looking at it the wrong way if we're just going to say "well, we're always going to be small so let's appeal to a smaller group". A lot of our problems with player retention are from screw-ups on multiple fronts (I mean what even is going on with lusty right now? I feel like we need an intervention). That said, thinking it over, maybe merging a few guilds by combining some classes under the same umbrella might help, but I'd like to know why that would succeed when covenants didn't.
Less positions demanding to be filled, for starters. I'm not suggesting that Lusternia can't appeal to new people; far from it. I'm simply pointing out that currently our game is built with the expectation that our population is larger than it is, making it unwieldy and forcing several guilds into inactive leadership by process of elimination. Hallifax and Gaudiguch still don't have monks because our population can't support two more guilds in the game. Frankly I don't see this changing in the near future, but I'd love to find a way to let those skillsets come into Lusternia without including more ghost towns. I think there is a happy medium between appealing to new players, retaining old ones, and building a game that can be supported by the population it garners.
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
@Rivius - what intervention is needed? I think that's a pretty subjective statement.
I think a lot of issues come from the fact that our player base in general is older, and populated by people who have been around for years, found their place within the game and have just kind of kept chugging on. Those older players (myself among them for sure) have gotten real jobs, have families, etc, so we've gone from being able to be around all day pretty much, to a couple hours a night. In my case, some of the time I'm logged in, I'm actually trying to put a fussy baby to sleep while my wife is getting some sleep, and I'm super bad about doing it at the Flame. (I'm working on it, I swear). It's just that my 3 month baby takes precedence over a quick RP conversation I may have with a newbie etc.
Yes, a lot of lore and identities have been built up, but it's also caused a lot of stagnation where there isn't really any room to grow and change. For example, I feel like one of Rivius' major concerns is with the warrior overhaul, a class he's devoted his entire existence in Lusternia to, and the fact that all the work and effort he's put in to excel at that role is being flipped on it's head with an entirely new system. As Sylandra pointed out, Rivius the character will still be around, but the question is will Rivius the player be willing to learn the new system and play that out.
For the game to continue, it needs an influx of new people. The question is does reducing guilds and possibly orgs (which I'm a fan of, one org = 4 or 5 guilds) help bring in and keep new people? Will people be upset, sure, but if you look at Achaea, they destroyed an entire city (though it was replaced I believe) and they're still going strong. It's not an exact parallel, but it's something to consider. Reducing the bloat could give a better appearance of a more populated game, enticing new people to play. I literally had someone ask me a few days ago if Gaudiguch was always this empty (it was a particularly bad day) and I had to let them know that no, while it's less populated than other orgs, there are a fair amount of people around.
TL:DR - game needs people, guild/org reduction can help with that. Yes some people may qq forever, but others will adapt and get on board.
As with any change, especially with a large one we're talking about here, there are always going to be people who cry out that we've ruined everything and quit playing. On the other hand, one of the reasons that I kept playing was because of the covenant with the Nihilists - there was almost nobody in my guild to help me get my feet under me, so the Nihilists stepped up and helped out a lot.
I've always believed (for the short time I've been here) that the Cacophony was dead because there were too few players, and I think the bards might be a less desired class, on the whole.
What I'm trying to say and failing at it is that there are too many organizations going on for our population -- some sort of chopping needs to be done to them, though I don't know what the best idea for that is. As for the people who have built their entire character up as a living representation of their guild? Change happens. You can adapt to it if you try, or you can give up altogether and quit. The change here would give you months of RP just trying to play your character as adapting to the differences without losing sight of who they are.
Fleshing out covenants isn't the way to go because it was meant to be a band-aid solution to empty guilds. We should either 1. get more people to play Lusternia and get them to join the empty guilds or 2. get rid of empty guilds and make new ones that will be more full (merge them).
1 isn't gonna happen anytime soon for a variety of reasons, while 2 is something we can actually try.
Also, for people who really value RP above many things, you guys are so inflexible when it comes to changes like this. Wah my entire identity is built around my guild, blah blah blah. If anything, I'd welcome an opportunity to really delve into what makes my character, my character. Is it a set of skills in a specific org or is it more than that?
Lastly, you guys are addressing a related (but different) problem - the low population. No one is saying that merging guilds will fix the low population. What it will do is get rid of empty guilds, which would help retain novices (due to the higher chance of people being around), help advance players (same reason), and add more life to your guild by virtue of a larger immediate population.
P.S. judging by the posts, I feel like a lot more people are on-board with deleting guilds, but the way the question was phrased was dumb, so they voted no due to the "org" part, the implication that only deletion will happen (no merging), or a mix of both. I feel confident that many more people agree than just the PK crowd.
I happen to know that Adele plays in Serenwilde, and Taylor Swift plays this really whiny rogue merian skank that blames her lack of long term relationships on her ex lovers.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
It's worth noting that 'deleting merging guilds' doesn't mean "Throw away all of your help files and lore, Shofangi - you're now part of the Serenguard deal with it".
Night will prevail and the Shadowdancers shall be left standing. Tall. And beautiful.And terrible as the Morning Night and the Night! Fair as the Sea Night and the Night and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love usand despair!
Viravain, Lady of the Thorns shouts, "And You would seize Me? Fool! I am the Glomdoring! I am the Wyrd, and beneath the cloak of Night, the shadows of the Silent stir!"
If the Shofangi merged with the Serenguard, there could be concerns that the guard might not be as receptive to the heavy Kephera stuff but they might be okay with Bull, which in itself would be a massive change for some in the Shofangi.
But like... well if the guild wasn't there then there's not much stopping people from creating monk clans in Serenwilde. While that might then mean that they are not the only one, it also opens up the rp possibilities of having competing Shofangi schools. Maybe there would be a group dedicated to the "Bull Path" while others prefer the traditionalist "Kepheran Path". Maybe one of those schools might even elevate themselves a level and try to have a presence in Celest and Hallifax (should they get their monks) while competing with more localised schools? Of course, then you have the downside of having to deal with shifting alliances.
Do we need three elected guild positions these days? Would reducing it to two, or even one, give the positions too much work to do?
Do we need this double-graduation thing we've got going? Would the world collapse if we just had collegium graduation, now you're GR1? Would player retention increase if newbies didn't have to go through guild novice and then guild rank advancement tasks? Or would people get bored? Would they miss the lore if it wasn't shoved in their faces?
If there were no guilds, what would actually happen? Would there be less political infighting if every Hartstone was just a druid following White Hart in Serenwilde, no guild elections/positions? Would people enjoy more freedom? I mean, I barely care about White Hart, I just ride around on my giant stag beetle and worship ladybugs. What would need to change to make up for certain things being absent? The Ambassador ministry was intended to be about newbies, but that job has been done by guild professors. So if guilds go, you can just give Ambassador the ability to appoint collegium professors. Who would sit on city councils, and how would they be elected/selected? I dunno about that, others would have to work it out.
Do we need three elected guild positions these days? Would reducing it to two, or even one, give the positions too much work to do?
No, really the Guild Administrator is the only one that's really "needed" and they should be able to appoint any number of... well underlings to help them out. It also creates a position of absolute authority in the guild that is also a single person to be replaced if they start messing up.
It also relates to a later part of your post, but in the past few years I've become rather heavily convinced that if a player council exists, then everyone in the group they lead should have a vote on them representing them. So I'm kinda opposed to GM/Family Head positions right now because it means that... well if I don't like someone on the Moonhart Council it's likely that I have no ability to contest them.
Similarly, Guild Champions... well they seem more of a commune function position as opposed to a guild position.
Do we need this double-graduation thing we've got going? Would the world collapse if we just had collegium graduation, now you're GR1? Would player retention increase if newbies didn't have to go through guild novice and then guild rank advancement tasks? Or would people get bored? Would they miss the lore if it wasn't shoved in their faces?
I think that the double-graduation is kinda wonky, I think the collegiums could do more. But I personally like the advancements and stuff, I like earning your way up in a guild and the like (at least as an option that's there), of course that doesn't require a guild in their current incarnation. Exploring lore can be done in various ways guilds just seem to be the way we do this right now.
If there were no guilds, what would actually happen? Would there be less political infighting if every Hartstone was just a druid following White Hart in Serenwilde, no guild elections/positions? Would people enjoy more freedom? I mean, I barely care about White Hart, I just ride around on my giant stag beetle and worship ladybugs. What would need to change to make up for certain things being absent? The Ambassador ministry was intended to be about newbies, but that job has been done by guild professors. So if guilds go, you can just give Ambassador the ability to appoint collegium professors. Who would sit on city councils, and how would they be elected/selected? I dunno about that, others would have to work it out.
There may be less infighting if you get rid of GMs just because... a council elected by the general population of an org is more likely (in my mind) to represent the majority opinion of the org. As opposed to a council filled with people who represent two or three people each. Which is related to the later question of who would sit on the councils, they'd have a specific number of positions, the org would elect people to those positions and the council would appoint someone to take the CL position.
I suppose the question more about the Hartstone... you wouldn't so much have the Hartstone, but what could evolve is different groups. We could end up with a clan trying to be the Cult of the Stag that really focuses on the teachings of the White Hart, or maybe there would be the Inheritors of Glinshari who focused more on being druids and less on the White Hart.
Instead of the guild being, ultimately, about the skills they give, you would have guilds based on the rp that people wanted to explore. I guess you're kinda a good example of this, if you don't really identify so much with the White Hart then you don't really need to. You could find a group that you identify with or create one to explore rp that you find interesting, if people group up with you then you might end up with a guild-like entity that encourages the rp that you like, where as if you only find a few then you might have this mini group to yourself. Also, if you don't actually feel like guilds are a thing you'd enjoy you could just not be in one.
For me, I'd probably either want to be in a group that really pushes the White Hart and/or Moon lore (I can see separate groups or a "Moonhart" group that venerates both of them), or one that's more focused around like... abandoning the trappings of mortality, ridding themselves of things that are unnecessary and living as one with nature (think maybe Silvari/Telvanni architecture, growing as opposed to building) with an end goal of destroying all that they declare unnatural.
For collegiums, the ambassador could take over, you could also have some election mechanic for it. (Maybe a mini-council)
I happen to like the GM-council set up that we have right now. It ensures that the minority does not get trampled by the majority. It's possible for both small guilds and big guilds to influence the direction their organization goes.
Guild Champion can go, though. We all love @Shuyin, but the position is far too narrow. It could be changed to how current undersecretary/protector -> secretary/security is done: GA presents nominees, and the GM selects from that pool the person who gets the champion pet.
I happen to like the GM-council set up that we have right now. It ensures that the minority does not get trampled by the majority. It's possible for both small guilds and big guilds to influence the direction their organization goes.
Guild Champion can go, though. We all love @Shuyin, but the position is far too narrow. It could be changed to how current undersecretary/protector -> secretary/security is done: GA presents nominees, and the GM selects from that pool the person who gets the champion pet.
I really don't agree, mostly because... there is an uncomfortable level of powerlessness that comes with the setup right now. Like, I can't vote against someone I don't want representing me, these people get to make choices about my play experience and if the people that are making choices I don't agree with are guild leaders from other guilds... I'm pretty limited in my ability to stop them.
Also, dual leadership would be pretty bad, it's bad enough when you have three leaders and the other two can't really stop the third from doing something actively negative for the guild, when those two people don't agree... yeah I would not want to be in that guild.
I feel like having 3 elected positions in a guild but only 1 in city/commune (I'm right about that, right? Only 1?) is kind of bass ackwards. Cities/communes are larger than guild, so it should have a larger amount of elected positions. As for guilds, I don't think that the 3 elected positions is a good thing at all; if I'm understanding it right, the champion is kind of a pointless role and even if it were kept, why is it an elected position? I feel like guilds could survive just fine if not better if there were only two elected positions - and even then, I'm not sure if that might still be too many. I think it's all just put together really weirdly.
What do you mean you can't vote against someone you disagree with? You have the ability to contest and take over that role? Same with if a leader is doing negative things for the guild, someone can contest and take it over?
I don't really understand where you're coming from @Saran, you have the ability to oust leaders. If you can't oust them because it turns out the majority of the guild agrees with said leader, well, that's not a fault of the system, that's how the system is designed to work.
Unless of course you're saying there isn't anyone to contest because of low population etc.
Zeleni - all the GM's are on the City council/court/whatever. It's not just 1 CL running the show.
I happen to like the GM-council set up that we have right now. It ensures that the minority does not get trampled by the majority. It's possible for both small guilds and big guilds to influence the direction their organization goes.
Guild Champion can go, though. We all love @Shuyin, but the position is far too narrow. It could be changed to how current undersecretary/protector -> secretary/security is done: GA presents nominees, and the GM selects from that pool the person who gets the champion pet.
Or since the pets are imbalanced, we just don't do champion pets, everyone should have a solid object (arty) that does not heavily influence combat like most of the guardian pets do.
Merge guilds, put more people together that way.
We Could easily remove at least one org, and I vote for Celest since Halli is Celest++ skill wise.
NOTE: For a Hallifaxian this topic was done very poorly. Your wording is set up to induce bias, which means you cannot rely on your results now.
@Malarious I have stated the reasoning behind my wording. I have found the results interesting, and I am not at all disappointed. However, if you have a more specific poll you would like to do (such as guild only, org only, guild merging, strengthening covenants) you do have the ability to start one.
You must realize that is only the first step of phase one of section one. Everything, as always, is proceeding as planned. Hallifax.
For Mister Zvoltz, Pejat has been terminated by the Replicant Dynodeon.
@Saran in is saying that if he doesn't like what the GM of another guild is doing on the org level, there isn't anything he can do about it.
That's even more false - he has a GM himself that he can speak with to do something about it, and at the very least, he can help push for that leaders replacement still. Nobody is helpless in this situation.
I don't see what the big issue is in letting players have multiple positions or in merging ministry positions as well.
It was silly that the Nihilist or Caco Champion didn't exist for most of my Warlord tenure.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
Comments
So I guess, if something like, merging the warriors and monks, and maybe the bards and wiccans/guardians, to get back down to three, that would be ok. I mean, we already have classflexed people with skills not of their guild.
Class would have to be made separate from guilds, or perhaps guilds could choose what classes to accept.
My brain is weird but for some reason I feel like i'd be annoyed if it was framed as mergers and things ended up being more... like the Serenguard teach Shofangi skills now or the Celestines have a nice new choir.
But if you wiped out the guilds and then made the... Celestial Church? Which might be heavily influenced by the Celestines... i'd have less issues for some reason.
Less positions demanding to be filled, for starters. I'm not suggesting that Lusternia can't appeal to new people; far from it. I'm simply pointing out that currently our game is built with the expectation that our population is larger than it is, making it unwieldy and forcing several guilds into inactive leadership by process of elimination. Hallifax and Gaudiguch still don't have monks because our population can't support two more guilds in the game. Frankly I don't see this changing in the near future, but I'd love to find a way to let those skillsets come into Lusternia without including more ghost towns. I think there is a happy medium between appealing to new players, retaining old ones, and building a game that can be supported by the population it garners.
If the Shofangi merged with the Serenguard, there could be concerns that the guard might not be as receptive to the heavy Kephera stuff but they might be okay with Bull, which in itself would be a massive change for some in the Shofangi.
But like... well if the guild wasn't there then there's not much stopping people from creating monk clans in Serenwilde.
While that might then mean that they are not the only one, it also opens up the rp possibilities of having competing Shofangi schools. Maybe there would be a group dedicated to the "Bull Path" while others prefer the traditionalist "Kepheran Path".
Maybe one of those schools might even elevate themselves a level and try to have a presence in Celest and Hallifax (should they get their monks) while competing with more localised schools? Of course, then you have the downside of having to deal with shifting alliances.
Do we need three elected guild positions these days? Would reducing it to two, or even one, give the positions too much work to do?
Do we need this double-graduation thing we've got going? Would the world collapse if we just had collegium graduation, now you're GR1? Would player retention increase if newbies didn't have to go through guild novice and then guild rank advancement tasks? Or would people get bored? Would they miss the lore if it wasn't shoved in their faces?
If there were no guilds, what would actually happen? Would there be less political infighting if every Hartstone was just a druid following White Hart in Serenwilde, no guild elections/positions? Would people enjoy more freedom? I mean, I barely care about White Hart, I just ride around on my giant stag beetle and worship ladybugs. What would need to change to make up for certain things being absent? The Ambassador ministry was intended to be about newbies, but that job has been done by guild professors. So if guilds go, you can just give Ambassador the ability to appoint collegium professors. Who would sit on city councils, and how would they be elected/selected? I dunno about that, others would have to work it out.
No, really the Guild Administrator is the only one that's really "needed" and they should be able to appoint any number of... well underlings to help them out. It also creates a position of absolute authority in the guild that is also a single person to be replaced if they start messing up.
It also relates to a later part of your post, but in the past few years I've become rather heavily convinced that if a player council exists, then everyone in the group they lead should have a vote on them representing them. So I'm kinda opposed to GM/Family Head positions right now because it means that... well if I don't like someone on the Moonhart Council it's likely that I have no ability to contest them.
Similarly, Guild Champions... well they seem more of a commune function position as opposed to a guild position.
I think that the double-graduation is kinda wonky, I think the collegiums could do more. But I personally like the advancements and stuff, I like earning your way up in a guild and the like (at least as an option that's there), of course that doesn't require a guild in their current incarnation. Exploring lore can be done in various ways guilds just seem to be the way we do this right now.
There may be less infighting if you get rid of GMs just because... a council elected by the general population of an org is more likely (in my mind) to represent the majority opinion of the org. As opposed to a council filled with people who represent two or three people each.
Which is related to the later question of who would sit on the councils, they'd have a specific number of positions, the org would elect people to those positions and the council would appoint someone to take the CL position.
I suppose the question more about the Hartstone... you wouldn't so much have the Hartstone, but what could evolve is different groups. We could end up with a clan trying to be the Cult of the Stag that really focuses on the teachings of the White Hart, or maybe there would be the Inheritors of Glinshari who focused more on being druids and less on the White Hart.
Instead of the guild being, ultimately, about the skills they give, you would have guilds based on the rp that people wanted to explore. I guess you're kinda a good example of this, if you don't really identify so much with the White Hart then you don't really need to. You could find a group that you identify with or create one to explore rp that you find interesting, if people group up with you then you might end up with a guild-like entity that encourages the rp that you like, where as if you only find a few then you might have this mini group to yourself. Also, if you don't actually feel like guilds are a thing you'd enjoy you could just not be in one.
For me, I'd probably either want to be in a group that really pushes the White Hart and/or Moon lore (I can see separate groups or a "Moonhart" group that venerates both of them), or one that's more focused around like... abandoning the trappings of mortality, ridding themselves of things that are unnecessary and living as one with nature (think maybe Silvari/Telvanni architecture, growing as opposed to building) with an end goal of destroying all that they declare unnatural.
For collegiums, the ambassador could take over, you could also have some election mechanic for it. (Maybe a mini-council)
That's even more false - he has a GM himself that he can speak with to do something about it, and at the very least, he can help push for that leaders replacement still. Nobody is helpless in this situation.