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.
I also find it weird is that in this coversation about moving away from guilds into a different organization, everyone treats the potential factions as a replacement for guilds. In other words, as if they were guilds and will function like guilds - just with fewer of them. This is made pretty clear by how everyone is theorycraft sorting the different factions by what guilds will merge into them, or what classes will be invited. I understand this impulse: It is a good thing to have a clubhouse where all the Wiccans can hang out and roleplay about their mystikal skillz. That's what drove my earlier suggestion! I don't think those groups need to be the factions, because then they are just guilds by another name.
For instance, what if Serenwilde's factions were divided by political outlook into Wilderists, Harmonists, and Isolationists? The Wilderists believe that the best way to deal with cities/outsiders is to dominate them. Harmonists believe the best way is to pull them into the fold, or otherwise neutralise them/make them see the error in their ways. Isolationists believe that the best course is to protect Serenwilde's borders and turn inwards. None of these are decidedly a 'Pk' or 'RP' group, and each could easily fold in any type of play.
So, serious question. Will the players be in charge of creating and fleshing these out at first? Will players be coming up with the names and concepts if this happens, or is that an admin thing?
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.
Ugh, my problem with cliques isn't the negative bullying connotation, it's the high school vibe. No thanks. Societies also is decidedly... Hallifaxian.
Echoing interest in specialization quests. Anyone can pick up cosmic whenever, it's common knowledge, but to pick up nihilism or whatever a short sequence would be lovely. Would keep some of the inherent elitism rather than just going, oh, you joined Magnagora? You can now manifest yourself as the culmination of mortal necromancy.
As long as it's reasonably simple (for instance, entering the archway to get access to telepathy skills is a reasonable, if perhaps a bit too easy, level), I can't see any problem with quests to get skills. Nothing as advanced as Cavaliers though.
Instead of quests required to specialize, perhaps the existing guild quests and eastereggs could be punched up some, and introduced as a way to devote yourself to the ways of a particular class. This would be a roleplaying device used to reaffirm previously guild-centric identities. For example, a hero's journey quest that gains you the approval of the Ancestors to join the Circle of Druids leading to a player ritual, instead of ranking up in the druid guild leading to a player ritual. Not fully automated, but a good mechanical hurdle to (again) lend legitimacy to non-factional class-based hierchies.
Admin would ultimately decide what the coalitions are (or probably I'll have the final say), but, as was said, we want players to have major input in the decision and imagine that players will be involved every step of the way.
Will it be possible/allowed to be in an org, with class skills, but not in a coalition? Cause some of my characters (Qistrel) would enjoy the new things, but others would probably prefer to just be a person in a city (Nikka).
Unless we get an Machine Cult in Mag. I'd probably join that.
Will it be possible/allowed to be in an org, with class skills, but not in a coalition? Cause some of my characters (Qistrel) would enjoy the new things, but others would probably prefer to just be a person in a city (Nikka).
Unless we get an Machine Cult in Mag. I'd probably join that.
Sure you can be without a coalition and still be in a city/commune! Skills work fine so long as you have access to your nexus (same as you can be guildless in your city/commune and have nexus access).
It would be really nice if, in order to pick up Celestialism, you had to meet each of the supernals and gain their blessing. Which would just be kneeling before them or something, but it'd still be a really awesome way to say that "congrats, you're now a full Celestine.".
And to gain Sacraments, you would have to drink from the Pool of Stars, like the Paladins of old. There's a lot of ways to make class quests that are very easy, yet chock full of flavour.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
It would be really nice if, in order to pick up Celestialism, you had to meet each of the supernals and gain their blessing. Which would just be kneeling before them or something, but it'd still be a really awesome way to say that "congrats, you're now a full Celestine.".
And to gain Sacraments, you would have to drink from the Pool of Stars, like the Paladins of old. There's a lot of ways to make class quests that are very easy, yet chock full of flavour.
I have to say, stuff like that would be awesome. Easy enough for anyone to do, but adds a little bit of flair to things.
2
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Yesss. My lasting contribution to Lusternia. The name "Coalition."
@Portius 's ideas for the Hallifax coalitions are really, really nice.
I'm going to throw out some ideas for Gaudiguch:
One of the overarching themes of Gaudiguch is sensation as the way to Enlightenment. Some focus on physical leisure with the parties, others smoke weed for mental clarity and receptiveness, a few drink alcohol to numb the body and give way for the spirit to dominate for a time (yes, this is how Eodh thinks >-) With that in mind, my candidates for the three Gaudi societies are:
The Cult of Somatic Revelries - Physical sensation is best. Body grafts, physical appearances, flashy tattoos, etc. are the most visible and thus obvious sign of Enlightenment, and will intrigue those uninitiated fools of the Basin enough for them to take a peak at the revelries of Gaudiguch.
The Cult of Higher Thought - Mental sensation is best. Literature, propaganda, surgical experiments on random people, discourses around a weed-infused fire etc. helps others find their way to Enlightenment even without partying in Gaudiguch.
The Cult of the Hidden Temple - Spiritual sensation is best. Probably the most obscure, those who reach Enlightenment through diverse and unconventional ways, pushing boundaries even beyond what the previous two cults engage in.
P.S. I am highly excited that this will make it a bit easier to introduce monks to Gaudiguch and Hallifax. I understand it will probably take more than a year, but still, that's a shorter time frame than what we currently have, which is "when we get enough people".
Cogitation on factions: If you're keeping the collegium, is there any reason to force players to pick a faction right when they start? Sees like it might be better to let them start factionless and join up with later when they figure out which one has the people and fluff that they like.
The main reason is likely the same as it's always been, to encourage player interaction. I know it's different for other people, but the flavour of my guild was the biggest reason I stuck around. That's what got me logging in enough to get pulled into other organizations. Without the guild I would have gotten out of the Collegium, been too intimidated to talk on CT, flailed around at some quests, twiddled my thumbs a bit, and left.
I know theoretically the Ambassador ministry will be expanded to handle some of this stuff, but it's just not the same as joining a hierarchical society that provides direction and interaction, and that's something I'd like to avoid losing.
I don't think it's surprising that people are trying to incorporate the years of work and lore they've put into their guilds into coalitions. It's understandable that they'd want to preserve what they consider the best parts of their guild. And while it's easy to say that "Oh, we can totally preserve this in a clan of like minded people" it's so rare for that to actually be sustainable, at least from what I've seen in this and other games. There's nothing really stopping us from making more use of the clan system for political parties now, except that they tend to die off when their founder goes inactive. Things that depend on the players entirely tend to get lost when those players leave. Things that are hardcoded tend to stick around in one form or another.
Portius's parties idea is interesting, but I don't think it's particularly newcomer friendly, and it leaves very little room for relatively apolitical Hallifaxians to participate in coalitions, without some substantial refluffing.
Incidentally I don't necessarily think letting people who play for similar reasons clump up is necessarily a bad thing, although I'm undecided about it. I'm just concerned because in Hallifax grouping by castes is pretty loaded, and so I think letting one coalition be the ic "higher ranking one" by default is just asking for it to be the defacto most populous, and initiating more ooc stress and conflict over precendence, etc.
In the interest of getting more ideas out, I am going to put forth a suggestion for my favorite org to discretely alt in. Grain of salt because I don't hang out there as much as I do in Hallifax, but it might stir ideas from people who are more heavily involved in the city.
Magnagora
The Aristocrats: Is it not right and proper that the best of us should rule? It is. Are we not the greatest of all mortals, both of the living and of the dead? We are. We are the chosen scions of the Nil. Our right to rule is divine. Even the soulless gods know to submit to us, for we wield their power in the taint. Just as I am the greatest of the aristocrats, we are the best of Magnagora, and Magnagora is the best of all the world. The rest of the world will serve us. If they kneel, they will serve in life. If they resist, they will serve in death.
The Progressives: Change begets improvement. We saw that when the taint came and made us stronger. Why should we rest when we can change even further? Even the Emanations of Shallmar changed for the better in the face of the Taint. Let us transform the world. That is our sacred task. Through the power of the Taint and the might of Industry, we shall replace weakness with strength wherever it can be found. Where flesh is weak, it will give way to steel. Where men are weak, they will give way to the undead. Where the land is weak, it will be tainted. There are no taboos. Embrace progress.
The Liberated Dead: Fate would have us wear chains. The natural order of things demands that we be weak, that we submit. I will not. If all living men must submit to fate, I shall not live. I embrace undeath through the power of the Taint. My destiny is my own. Those who would serve the natural order and destroy this sacred too of liberation must be destroyed. Those who would resist our natural submission must be given Urlach's gift.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
Interesting concepts @Portius, but very Hallifaxian-themed names. While Aristocracy is a big deal in Magnagora (though admittedly in old Magnagora before it's evolution into the Engine), I somehow doubt that there would be a faction based on Aristocracy, I dunno.
----
Sidebar: As for leadership issues, if it is going to be seen as an issue, could always make Factions glory orgs for players, and not actually have leadership in it. People can work together and agree on things and what not, but wont be a head honcho. Just a thought.
All I can say after going through the thread again is that I literally have no idea how some people are under the impression that -literally reducing- the number of "guilds" from 4-5 to 3 will split people up further.
If there is a sample of 15 people, dividing them by 3 results in 5 people, dividing by 5 results in 3 people.
Basic math says otherwise.
Is it a matter of not having people to teach skills? Loosening up classflex restrictions should solve that.
Think that we should just get more people in Lusternia? Yeah, please let show us how to get more people in a way that the admin haven't already tried one way or another in the 5+ years that Lusternia has been going on.
Concentrating people in guilds isn't going to solve population issues, but it will make it easier to interact with the people we already do have. That way, we have a solid base to start from. If we can at least give the impression that guild x isn't always empty, then maybe we can keep more people around.
Also, I like the ideas for factions that people have presented. Portius' Mag/Halli examples pumped me up.
1
SylandraJoin Queue for Mafia GamesThe Last Mafia Game
Incidentally I don't necessarily think letting people who play for similar reasons clump up is necessarily a bad thing, although I'm undecided about it. I'm just concerned because in Hallifax grouping by castes is pretty loaded, and so I think letting one coalition be the ic "higher ranking one" by default is just asking for it to be the defacto most populous, and initiating more ooc stress and conflict over precendence, etc.
To clarify: I'm actually really pro that clumping up. I think it makes much more sense representation-wise, too, for an org to get to hear from a variety of standpoints in its voting council. I posted from my phone before so I didn't really get to elaborate. Going at it from a culture (ie, Downton Abbey RP), Institute-esque research, and 1984 military perspective would work for Hallifax I think. It'd also ensure all those opinions get heard in the Board, as opposed to one set of like-minded players dominating the political arena.
Further, I don't think any coalition should be inherently 'superior' to another. I see the coalitions in Hallifax as kind of like a broader set of the Skylark Company (ie, a military group), the Symphonium (ie, a culturally artsy higher emotions oriented group), and the Institute (ie, a group of people dedicated to research and engineering and science to further Hallifax). Obviously those names are loaded in terms of guild-meaning, but the concepts behind them I think appeal to a wide group of people. Being in the artsy coalition means being in a group of people that share your goals for Hallifax, and it's easier to put together, say, cultural events and planning when all those people are under one banner together. Same with a military group for PVPers who can focus on conflict mechanics and helping combatant newbies be good at combat. Same with the people into the scholarly research science stuff of Hallifax; Portius has voiced he doesn't feel this gets mentioned enough in Hallifax, but if this was a more condensed group, then it'd be easier to arrange events etc to promote this RP. The more likeminded people you put in one place, the more you can achieve.
Right now the Aeromancers are maybe heavily skewed towards artsy people, with a lower set of them being interested in engineering, and a handful of people focused on combat. Coalitions I think give more purpose to the people within them.
ETA: This also must make patron work so much easier for the admin. That's, worst case scenario, three factions versus hypothetically five guilds for an admin to run solo.
"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."
2
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited December 2015
response to @eodh and his ideas, but quotes are broken.
Mrmmmphh. I like them but I think they are all the same. All of these could actually just be one faction that seeks enlightenment through different means. I think what would be more interesting for Gaudiguch is not necessarily their vice of choice (that gets a little shallow, IMHO, how much RP can there be about getting drunk) but what "enlightenment" or "freedom" means. I'm bad with names, bear with me.
The Enlightened: For instance, you have those that look inward for enlightenment. They modify themselves, they hit the bottle or smoke the pipe to unlock potential in themselves to discover things. Enlightenment is discovered by unlocking inner gates and potential through the self and manifesting that potential into reality (my very loose understanding of @Mysrai and her paradigm thing). They are often aloof, distant and distracted with great ideas.
The Primordial: Then you have those that look outwards and to other sources, like primal fire, as the source of enlightenment. Fire destroys, consumes, and from it things are remade and reborn. It is the perfect cycle, and it is through the continuation of that cycle and opening ourselves to the irreverent, indiscriminate consumption of fire, by surrendering to passion and purpose and the wild, uncontainable cycle that you find enlightenment. This would be Celina, for example. Fire is a big part of Gaudiguch, and though I'm still new, I think some people could identify more with a more primal archetype than the partyguch or abstract side of things. They are typically driven and passionate, even temperamental and excitable.
The Willful: The third could be the coalition that does not care for enlightenment. They exist to exist, they are careless and wildly spontaneous. They are grounded in the now, with no higher purpose. They are the manifestation of freedom and will. Understanding and purpose are distractions. They are spectrum, but most consistently they are carefree and warm.
Am I the only one who feels it would be a mistake to make Coalitions based on opposing political agendas? It is adding more divisiveness to each organization, and mechanically keeping them divided. Ideally, to me, coalitions would be differing groups all having the same end goal but focusing on a specific aspect to reach it, instead of "No, your ideas are Wrong, only my coalition has the best interests of our organization in mind!"
I thought that the original guild concepts tended to do that pretty well with one supporting the elemental / fundamental physical aspect of the society, one addressing the more spiritual (Cosmic / Ethereal), and then the third rooted in the strength of one's own arms to support the cause.
Then you have groups that want to work together, not groups that want to tear each other apart.
Edit: There is no reason that the third coalition (self strength) could not be uniquely tied to each org as well. Clockwork/machine faction for Magnagora would be one example. That definitely does not need to be a cookie-cutter!
Just some random thoughts catching up on the discussion.
Re quests for skills, I'm not terribly confident that this is a good idea. Nothing is more frustrating to a newbie trying to get into the game than hurdles to get your skills. Cavaliers are different insofar that we specifically don't want newbies to take that skillset because of the requirement (and understanding) of mounts, so a quest made sense there."
I like the idea of quests for some skills in theory but I'm not sold on an effective implementation of the idea in MMOs in general let alone Lusternia in particular
- the concern that quests for skills would discourage newbies is reasonable and valid.
-Personally I think that any skill rewards from a quest should be reserved for (1)optional skills in a skill set (deaging in Aeonics or the animate dead ability in Necromancy) and/or (2) slanted towards end-game skills (Mythical to Transcendent to give an arbitrary range).
-prior to this I was not aware that Cavaliers already have a quest to obtain Cavalier related skills
- The potential of griefing which would result in additional complaints and forum anger. As we see in quests that are not specifically conflict quests in lusternia (like org cubix quests) griefling individuals is going to occur. Even if the current toxic individuals who have a history of griefing were removed from the equation (ie banned, which would be inequitable), the structure of quests in lusternia consist of rooms where multiple individuals (hostile or otherwise) can congregate and NPC denizens that are hard coded to be influenced negatively by player skills. Even if skill quest denizens were coded to be immortal and refractory to a non-organization player's negative skills the skill quest could still be griefed by other players. Thus I think that even if skill quests are more widespread, the designers have to expect and be tolerant of an increase in anger/annoyance on this forum and other media.
-- To look at other MMO's for examples for skill quests: In general I recall that skill quests were seen as more of a pain in World of Warcraft than something "fun" to do. Since in the Lusternia discussion we are talking about quests for functional skills rather than a trade skill like end game tier armory or something, the only MMO that I recall that had quests for combat/functional skills was the Warhammer MMO. I don't know how skill quests in Warhammer were receivedby players. I'm sure there are other examples in the literature out there.
Am I the only one who feels it would be a mistake to make Coalitions based on opposing political agendas? It is adding more divisiveness to each organization, and mechanically keeping them divided. Ideally, to me, coalitions would be differing groups all having the same end goal but focusing on a specific aspect to reach it, instead of "No, your ideas are Wrong, only my coalition has the best interests of our organization in mind!"
So what would you suggest for 3 coalitions in Glomdoring? The skies the limit!
Am I the only one who feels it would be a mistake to make Coalitions based on opposing political agendas? It is adding more divisiveness to each organization, and mechanically keeping them divided. Ideally, to me, coalitions would be differing groups all having the same end goal but focusing on a specific aspect to reach it, instead of "No, your ideas are Wrong, only my coalition has the best interests of our organization in mind!"
Comments
Illuminaughty Coalition
Temple Run Coalition
The Roof is on Fire Coalition
Ugh, my problem with cliques isn't the negative bullying connotation, it's the high school vibe. No thanks. Societies also is decidedly... Hallifaxian.
Admin would ultimately decide what the coalitions are (or probably I'll have the final say), but, as was said, we want players to have major input in the decision and imagine that players will be involved every step of the way.
Unless we get an Machine Cult in Mag. I'd probably join that.
Love the idea of a Machine Cult!
And to gain Sacraments, you would have to drink from the Pool of Stars, like the Paladins of old. There's a lot of ways to make class quests that are very easy, yet chock full of flavour.
I know theoretically the Ambassador ministry will be expanded to handle some of this stuff, but it's just not the same as joining a hierarchical society that provides direction and interaction, and that's something I'd like to avoid losing.
I don't think it's surprising that people are trying to incorporate the years of work and lore they've put into their guilds into coalitions. It's understandable that they'd want to preserve what they consider the best parts of their guild. And while it's easy to say that "Oh, we can totally preserve this in a clan of like minded people" it's so rare for that to actually be sustainable, at least from what I've seen in this and other games. There's nothing really stopping us from making more use of the clan system for political parties now, except that they tend to die off when their founder goes inactive. Things that depend on the players entirely tend to get lost when those players leave. Things that are hardcoded tend to stick around in one form or another.
Portius's parties idea is interesting, but I don't think it's particularly newcomer friendly, and it leaves very little room for relatively apolitical Hallifaxians to participate in coalitions, without some substantial refluffing.
Incidentally I don't necessarily think letting people who play for similar reasons clump up is necessarily a bad thing, although I'm undecided about it. I'm just concerned because in Hallifax grouping by castes is pretty loaded, and so I think letting one coalition be the ic "higher ranking one" by default is just asking for it to be the defacto most populous, and initiating more ooc stress and conflict over precendence, etc.
Magnagora
The Aristocrats: Is it not right and proper that the best of us should rule? It is. Are we not the greatest of all mortals, both of the living and of the dead? We are. We are the chosen scions of the Nil. Our right to rule is divine. Even the soulless gods know to submit to us, for we wield their power in the taint. Just as I am the greatest of the aristocrats, we are the best of Magnagora, and Magnagora is the best of all the world. The rest of the world will serve us. If they kneel, they will serve in life. If they resist, they will serve in death.
The Progressives: Change begets improvement. We saw that when the taint came and made us stronger. Why should we rest when we can change even further? Even the Emanations of Shallmar changed for the better in the face of the Taint. Let us transform the world. That is our sacred task. Through the power of the Taint and the might of Industry, we shall replace weakness with strength wherever it can be found. Where flesh is weak, it will give way to steel. Where men are weak, they will give way to the undead. Where the land is weak, it will be tainted. There are no taboos. Embrace progress.
The Liberated Dead: Fate would have us wear chains. The natural order of things demands that we be weak, that we submit. I will not. If all living men must submit to fate, I shall not live. I embrace undeath through the power of the Taint. My destiny is my own. Those who would serve the natural order and destroy this sacred too of liberation must be destroyed. Those who would resist our natural submission must be given Urlach's gift.
----
Sidebar: As for leadership issues, if it is going to be seen as an issue, could always make Factions glory orgs for players, and not actually have leadership in it. People can work together and agree on things and what not, but wont be a head honcho. Just a thought.
So there is this talent agent...OHHHHH --by Andrew Dice K
I thought that the original guild concepts tended to do that pretty well with one supporting the elemental / fundamental physical aspect of the society, one addressing the more spiritual (Cosmic / Ethereal), and then the third rooted in the strength of one's own arms to support the cause.
Then you have groups that want to work together, not groups that want to tear each other apart.
Edit: There is no reason that the third coalition (self strength) could not be uniquely tied to each org as well. Clockwork/machine faction for Magnagora would be one example. That definitely does not need to be a cookie-cutter!