Oh, I forgot to add: the other orgs don't really discourage their players from engaging in combat. It's just that there's only so much you can do against King Bleed. Players don't discourage combat; outrageous skill imbalances do.
It's literally a waste of your time and enjoyment to fight the unwinnable (unless you're a masochist, in which case, you do you).
@Steingrim I agree with most of what you said about mechanics. However, there is the obvious intent of mechanics then what players do with the mechanics. It's obvious the intent was not to have three orgs offset nodes. It is obviously a free for all that we made a team mechanic. Orgcredits in the hands of players are bad news. However, let's move to a 2v2v2. If you are dominating the game then of course the other two sides will ceasefire. However, lack of a formal alliance will backfire sometimes. Like Orael said timequakes is banking on some orgs having off hours. The problem currently is there are 0 times in which Halli/Mag/Seren pose a threat during Gaudi/Celest peak. Then we definitely don't during Glom's peak.
The admins are pretty set with the overall design of timequakes. The rewards are the only thing up in the air. Just chalk it up to another system that cements Glom's position.
If one of the big issues is bleed, why don't we talk about changing it to act more like other affs? Have it be cured by one of the central cures, instead of clot/chervil. Make it go up levels like timewarp/deathmark. Each level adds x damage taken whenever the player takes damage. Or each level slows down the time it takes to recover sip balance. Or recover slush balance. That's probably the closest analog.
If one of the big issues is bleed, why don't we talk about changing it to act more like other affs? Have it be cured by one of the central cures, instead of clot/chervil. Make it go up levels like timewarp/deathmark. Each level adds x damage taken whenever the player takes damage. Or each level slows down the time it takes to recover sip balance. Or recover slush balance. That's probably the closest analog.
Bleeding is an issue, but I would rather buff instead of trying to nerf it due to what Esoneyuna mentioned about sledgehammer. Bleeding > timewarp but not by much. Tempinsanity may need some help. I am actually not sure how it is going right now. Serenwilde looks theoretically okay. Demon marks definitely needs a tweaking do to nerfs after rework.
Ignore mages because I'm hoping mage rework is after Timequakes. Let's discuss classes: Wicca/Gaurdian > monk(not halli/Gaudi) > bard > warriors. Let's get all these on par.
However, none of this fixes the numbers (players). Unless we swing the pendulum and make this side op to where numbers don't matter then the exact thing would happen just the sides would be swapped.
All classes need a viable kill method. We also need to discuss what viable is. Is SD where we want our kill methods to be in terms of viability? If so then great let's get to reporting.
This thread has seemed to steer back into something productive, so I'm going to leave it open, but if it devolves again, we'll have to close it. Fair warning.
The fact Serens don't kick out leaders if they don't change that payment for leader/minister ruleset is beyond me.
5) At this point I would much rather have them bring in someone from another IRE game who has experience with Rapture but none of the bagage of Lusternian player politics. Because like in any game that has a competitive side you can only use players as advisors not as the truth about all. A lot gets theorized on anecdotal evidence and incomplete statistics. And the fault there lies 100% with the admins who refuse to share the real statistics which a player can't get.
And I won't speak of if Glomdoring needs nerfing or not (I do not have the knowledge for that). I will tell you Lusternia has a reputation of sledgehammer nerfing destroying entire classes for RL years instead of the fine tweaking that was needed. So I understand the reluctance to follow people just going yeah lets nerf that skill without giving exact things to change with the stats to support it. And so we once again come to admins having to do the math themselves.
Nope, reason I didn't mention them! I try to only talk about things I have knowledge of, or at the bare minimum an educated guess and willing to admit to be wrong. I've stayed away from Seren as a whole for well over a decade, because it can't seem to decide if it is snuggle time or savage mode. Whatever they pick is up to them, just not my cup o' tea.
Seren pays their leaders? That's...actually amazing and I suddenly want to roll an alt, afk for my 150 hours, then spam contest CL so I can get paid. Huh? Already done? Well...balls.
I totally get the suggestion of bringing an outside source that is a pair of fresh eyes than say, someone who felt jaded by cause X. There are sometimes though, players that can set aside bias and do things by the numbers and actively pursue balance. It is rare, and a lot of people think they can because we overestimate ourselves sometimes, but it can and does happen. While my little hashtag was meant as a serious request, I don't expect anything to come from it.
I think the common thing right now is people want to be buffed to that same level of synergy and combat viability, rather than nerf. As someone who's been here since beta, I know exactly what you're talking about, going full Miley Cyrus on classes or skills (wrecking ball). Some posts were talking about nerfing, but I think that got curbed out and people instead wanting to be buffed to that level.
Onto the bleeding suggestions that were made not by Esoneyuna though! Bleed as anything than what it is now will be difficult to discuss or theorycraft on, since if it becomes just an affliction, there is no stacking and a lot of things start to go to waste. If we make it a stacking affliction, a la hemorrhaging, then the problem occurs that does chervil/ice cure all the bleeding that is allowed? Perhaps a different avenue would be one of the following:
a) Make chervil reduce more bleeding when eaten b) Clot's mana cost is reduced by a percentage (Let's say 50% as a trial number) c) Chervil/clot remain same healing and cost, but ingesting chervil makes any incoming bleeding only effect you half as much.
Literally some suggestions to throw at the wall, and I don't expect any of them to be taken and used. But, that is the problem I see with trying to change bleed as a whole. This also would then act as a nerf, to everyone, and not truly solve the complaints being made.
Seren pays their leaders? That's...actually amazing and I suddenly want to roll an alt, afk for my 150 hours, then spam contest CL so I can get paid. Huh? Already done? Well...balls.
As a player, these discussions are making me question my return. Maybe the non-Gloms do need to try harder, but, it does really seem insurmountable for us at this point, so I personally am not going to try even relearning combat unless something changes. And what I seem to be hearing from Glom people is that I am therefore the problem. Because I'm not trying. And I'm not alone in this, a lot of people have been trying and are just tired of it at this point, or, like me, look at combat and go well, there's not much point.
So what I'm asking is, if I am a problem for not trying, do you want me to leave, and the other tired people to leave, leaving Lusternia smaller but with only people who want to try? Would that be better? I'm not trying to be snide, this is an actual question I want the people winning to answer.
Onto the bleeding suggestions that were made not by Esoneyuna though! Bleed as anything than what it is now will be difficult to discuss or theorycraft on, since if it becomes just an affliction, there is no stacking and a lot of things start to go to waste. If we make it a stacking affliction, a la hemorrhaging, then the problem occurs that does chervil/ice cure all the bleeding that is allowed? Perhaps a different avenue would be one of the following:
a) Make chervil reduce more bleeding when eaten b) Clot's mana cost is reduced by a percentage (Let's say 50% as a trial number) c) Chervil/clot remain same healing and cost, but ingesting chervil makes any incoming bleeding only effect you half as much.
Literally some suggestions to throw at the wall, and I don't expect any of them to be taken and used. But, that is the problem I see with trying to change bleed as a whole. This also would then act as a nerf, to everyone, and not truly solve the complaints being made.
Well, why can't it be changed to work the same as timewarp/temporaryinsanity in how it stacks/is cured? Just make it a ice cure or a slush cure instead of steam etc. Mirrored abilities is the best way to ensure balance across organizations. I'd make Serenwilde work on the same bleeding synergy. The EFFECTS of bleeding would also change, since apparently it causing damage to vitals is the problem. So could make bleeding either slow a cure balance, make physical affs harder to cure, or reduce the amount of health recovered from sipping healing (though that is close damaging vitals). Or some other effect.
Clot just costing less mana seems ok. Basically it makes it so you need higher levels of bleeding to achieve equivalent levels of mana drain. But I'd say change bleeding entirely to work more similarly to how every other affliction in the game working. It seems strange that after a curing overhaul, when everything is on a select few balances, we still have 'oh but wait, bleeding is its own herb + command cure because reasons'.
Basically, I'd want to make bleeding exactly the same as timewarp/temporary insanity. Have Nekotai + Shofangi give bleeding in mirrored ways. Change redcap if needed to something that better synergies with New Bleed. Yea, it's a big change across a couple of different things, but it also doesn't seem insurmountable. And if change is what people want, then you have to start with something.
You say 'not truly solve the complaints being made', and now I'm confused. I thought bleeding was explicitly the problem? This isn't me saying this, this is the opinion of people who think Glomdoring is too powerful in this very thread.
The primary complaint being lodged is the sheer numbers and how things keep being tacked on to make those numbers even more an advantage. Yes, the bleed is one problem, so to is the insane amounts of bleeding Glom can put out regardless of your class skills. While changing how bleed functions would solve a problem, not all, to clarify. Back to your suggestion, if we made bleed into a standard affliction with some negative effect, how would we change all the skills in the game that cause bleed? Less changes would be needed, and probably easier, to leave bleed functioning how it already does, but instead altering how much gets applied and how much is cured. Bleeding is so devastating currently because you're choosing X health or Y mana, which are both vitals that are well...easily exploited. Obviously zero health means dead, but being below 50% mana is a death sentence, for any org.
So while classes do have active mana drains to pursue that kill method, it is weighted towards those that also have passive mana draining (a la bleeding or song powers etc). I'm going to make up a skillname and apply a value to what it does so that we all have something to work with to continue this discussion:
Syntax: SANGUINESWIPE <target>
Damage type: 100% Cutting
Applies an amount of bleeding to the target equal to the amount of damage it would apply normally.
So, since it is a cutting attack, let's just saying it does 500 bleeding after all resistances and damage reduction, which is reasonable to assume that someone with a 13/13 cutting buff would do at least 500 damage with a weapon attack. How does this get handled? Well, by itself, it isn't going to do much or really cause any threat as now the attacker is off balance and that amount can be clotted and chervil'd safely. Now if we have two people doing this on balance, now we're up to 1000 bleeding every 2 seconds and things become dicey. My proposition for how to change bleed is diminishing returns on how much can be applied. These are just theory values and are open for discussion:
100 bleeding - reduce incoming bleeding by 10% 250 bleeding - reduce incoming bleeding by 25% 500 bleeding - reduce incoming bleeding by 50%
Eating chervil applies a short, non-strippable, buff that keeps your highest bleeding resistance for ten seconds. Now we're looking at a way to cope with lots of bleeding. Back to my example, you get smashed with SanguineSwipe and hit the 50% reduction, you eat a chervil to heal some of the bleeding, and now as they continue to swipe at you, are effectively applying 250 bleed instead of 500. It doesn't really take away from the actual attacks meant to cause huge amounts of bleeding, but truly counters the small passive bleeds as that number is dwindled.
That works on the surface for group shenanigans, but my concern is that it doesn't actually remove the "vitals synergy of Glomdoring" that is being complained about. It still affects vitals, Glomdoring still has extra synergy with it. So. Where does that leave us?
That was a suggestion of how much bleeding someone is hit with at a time, but bleeding attacks/effects could also be reduced in potency if it becomes required. I'm not here to nerf it to the ground or "your synergy is too good, let's ruin it." ya know? Assuming this got implemented, it would be a small step and test the waters. If things get better with this implemented and it levels out, problem solved. But, if it continues to still be an actual problem, then potency can be looked at for skills. If buffing other things to equal levels isn't doable or on the table, then minimizing the 'nerf' is next best thing.
While the discussion is focused on bleed as a mechanic, here's my take on why it's the best of the synergies:
Simply, it's an affliction that also directly pressures two separate vitals (health and mana).
All other synergies have multiple steps and requirements to achieve a kill. You can timewarp and aeon someone all you like but that won't kill them. But with bleed, you can literally just spam bleed and they'd eventually die, either by not clotting (health runs out) or by clotting and running out of mana until you can clot no more (...health runs out). In group combat (let's be honest, the only combat that really matters), this effect becomes even more deadly.
If you really want to fix bleed, address that. Or, adjust timewarp and tempinsanity or dustaffs (still lol) to have similar effects.
Well, that's why I think changing it entirely to work similar to other afflictions, while a bigger project, is a good step to take. The blanket start can just be that abilities that just 'tack' on bleeding can instead do more damage. Or give hemo instead (looking at you, warrior attacks). Then abilities that are based around bleeding, ala Harbingers or Druidry, can work around this new, timewarp-bleed. But of course bigger projects can end up never actually happening, so I understand the concern. I'm just putting up the other side here.
Sorry, had to giggle at timewarp-bleed and the mental image. Person 1, "Dude, you're bleeding!" Person 2, "No way. I'm fi-----FFFFFFFFUUUU."
Back on track, I'm good with the changes recommended so far, whether a base aff or leaving it as is and altering how it gets added onto. Though this could probably become it's own thread so that this can return to what it was originally about, numbers advantage and why it feels hopeless. I'll make it a poll thread and just link this page in the OP.
Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.
Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.
If you just want people to change orgs more freely: make it easier to change orgs. Tie artifacts to accounts, not characters. At least, that's the only thing preventing me from changing orgs really. My characters RP simply won't fit another org (it felt super weird that one time I went to Hallifax years ago... weird enough that I stopped playing the game). But I also don't want to give up several amounts of RL cash to play a new character.
It won't happen, though. So onto other ideas. Ah well.
Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.
Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.
Also, I have seen some hold back. I literally am not playing in my favorite org because of this. That means I did at least put my money where my mouth is. I also suggested more than once that a 2v2v2 would work out better.
2 Possible (Realistic) Options: Option 1: Glom/Seren Celest/Gaudi Mag/Halli
I'm opposed to hard caps, since I'm a big fan of the empire concept as long as it's not easy to achieve and maintain. The Holy New Celestine Empire shall rise once again.
The big problem is that an org, if it knows it can't easily take a village (for example), is that they show up to become bodyguards for their allies. Essentially, the winning org gets to prop up their puppets.
For revolts, my rough idea is that if an org holds more than 3 villages, then each member of that org that enters an uninfluenced village will cause village feelings to drain away from all their owned villages. This drained amount has to be significant enough to be noticeable.
And if my above idea is taken, then I have a further revamp of revolts in mind:
1- Remove the hardcoded group revolts (Talthos-Dairuchi, Estelbar-Acknor, so on and so forth).
2- Villages will instead revolt if their feelings towards their master org hits the lowest. I think it's -3 or -4 from neutral? I've forgotten. So if, for example, Glomdoring owns 6 villages (as it does now) and it insists on bodyguarding for Gaudiguch at a Dairuchi revolt, then they would eventually cause all their six villages to revolt, too. This is why the feelings drain I was talking about above has to be significant.
I'm thinking: one single member of Glomdoring (to stay consistent with our example) will drain away 1 level of feelings per 5 minutes they stay inside. Cumulative, so it can't be gamed easily by darting in/out of the area.
If there are 7 levels of feelings in total (-3, 0, 3), then 35 minutes of one person from Glomdoring bodyguarding in the example Dairuchi revolt would cause all Glom villages to revolt.
The more Gloms who bodyguard for the revolt, the worse the effects. 7 Gloms who enter the village would cause theirs to revolt in one tick.
3- If a master org manages to maintain positive feelings, then it'd just keep using the old system: the village would have a chance to revolt 8? RL days from when it was taken.
Biggest danger I see is that people can break alt rules, to force an org's villages to revolt. I don't really have a solution for that, other than make it an IP bannable offense.
Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.
Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.
Also, I have seen some hold back. I literally am not playing in my favorite org because of this. That means I did at least put my money where my mouth is. I also suggested more than once that a 2v2v2 would work out better.
2 Possible (Realistic) Options: Option 1: Glom/Seren Celest/Gaudi Mag/Halli
Option 2: Glom/Seren Celest/Halli Mag/Gaudi
Wouldn't getting rid of three cities make this even easier? Then you would not be forced into alliances nobody was happy with but nobody could break?
Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.
Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.
Also, I have seen some hold back. I literally am not playing in my favorite org because of this. That means I did at least put my money where my mouth is. I also suggested more than once that a 2v2v2 would work out better.
2 Possible (Realistic) Options: Option 1: Glom/Seren Celest/Gaudi Mag/Halli
Option 2: Glom/Seren Celest/Halli Mag/Gaudi
Wouldn't getting rid of three cities make this even easier? Then you would not be forced into alliances nobody was happy with but nobody could break?
Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.
Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.
Also, I have seen some hold back. I literally am not playing in my favorite org because of this. That means I did at least put my money where my mouth is. I also suggested more than once that a 2v2v2 would work out better.
2 Possible (Realistic) Options: Option 1: Glom/Seren Celest/Gaudi Mag/Halli
Option 2: Glom/Seren Celest/Halli Mag/Gaudi
Wouldn't getting rid of three cities make this even easier? Then you would not be forced into alliances nobody was happy with but nobody could break?
In theory yes. Trinity systems have a lot of advantages in balancing but only if it allows wars on two fronts per org and the player balance does not go way out of wack.
An dynamic alliance system in a trinity has the advantage that you can steer the population, so if the population gets out of wack you can create new alliances that are more balanced.
Those are theories though, in reality alliances will not shift so easily because you build relationships with people in your alliance. Likewise it would be hard to play with 'enemy' orgs cause sometimes things happened which egoes oocly.
I wish to point out as long as alliances are not mechanicly recognised, no pvp gating based on numbers will work unless the numbers are so low the game might as well be a wargames arena event.
It doesn't matter if you're the best and fastest driver on a kayak when your competition is driving a speedboat.
The "git gud" motto is a huge fallacy and I automatically pity anyone who is deluded by it.
wow "git gud" I never thought of my suggestions were meant to be assumed as such. Anyway, it still stands that one should be willing to take time to help build others up, but thanks for interpreting my words incorrectly per usual on this hot mess of a forum.
The deleting orgs/changing alliances systems seem silly to talk about because we know they won't happen. The former because... come on. And the latter because it would either need to be actively policed by admins or be entirely reliant on the players taking it easy. So again, come on.
Hard coded limits, again, what's the problem? The causing feelings to go down system that Anak suggested seems fine to me, too, because, in practicality, it seems the same as a hard coded limit system. If Glomdoring cannot physical enter any villages during a revolt after they've taken 3, for example, then they can't play bodyguard to another org, either. So numbers balance out. Right?
(I'm also against the empire idea because it seems that's exactly what the problem is. The Holy Glomdoring Empire has risen. So. Isn't that what we want to avoid?)
Comments
It's literally a waste of your time and enjoyment to fight the unwinnable (unless you're a masochist, in which case, you do you).
Accountability is necessary.
Accountability is necessary.
Bleeding is an issue, but I would rather buff instead of trying to nerf it due to what Esoneyuna mentioned about sledgehammer. Bleeding > timewarp but not by much. Tempinsanity may need some help. I am actually not sure how it is going right now. Serenwilde looks theoretically okay. Demon marks definitely needs a tweaking do to nerfs after rework.
Ignore mages because I'm hoping mage rework is after Timequakes. Let's discuss classes: Wicca/Gaurdian > monk(not halli/Gaudi) > bard > warriors. Let's get all these on par.
However, none of this fixes the numbers (players). Unless we swing the pendulum and make this side op to where numbers don't matter then the exact thing would happen just the sides would be swapped.
All classes need a viable kill method. We also need to discuss what viable is. Is SD where we want our kill methods to be in terms of viability? If so then great let's get to reporting.
Seren pays their leaders? That's...actually amazing and I suddenly want to roll an alt, afk for my 150 hours, then spam contest CL so I can get paid. Huh? Already done? Well...balls.
I totally get the suggestion of bringing an outside source that is a pair of fresh eyes than say, someone who felt jaded by cause X. There are sometimes though, players that can set aside bias and do things by the numbers and actively pursue balance. It is rare, and a lot of people think they can because we overestimate ourselves sometimes, but it can and does happen. While my little hashtag was meant as a serious request, I don't expect anything to come from it.
I think the common thing right now is people want to be buffed to that same level of synergy and combat viability, rather than nerf. As someone who's been here since beta, I know exactly what you're talking about, going full Miley Cyrus on classes or skills (wrecking ball). Some posts were talking about nerfing, but I think that got curbed out and people instead wanting to be buffed to that level.
Onto the bleeding suggestions that were made not by Esoneyuna though! Bleed as anything than what it is now will be difficult to discuss or theorycraft on, since if it becomes just an affliction, there is no stacking and a lot of things start to go to waste. If we make it a stacking affliction, a la hemorrhaging, then the problem occurs that does chervil/ice cure all the bleeding that is allowed? Perhaps a different avenue would be one of the following:
a) Make chervil reduce more bleeding when eaten
b) Clot's mana cost is reduced by a percentage (Let's say 50% as a trial number)
c) Chervil/clot remain same healing and cost, but ingesting chervil makes any incoming bleeding only effect you half as much.
Literally some suggestions to throw at the wall, and I don't expect any of them to be taken and used. But, that is the problem I see with trying to change bleed as a whole. This also would then act as a nerf, to everyone, and not truly solve the complaints being made.
So what I'm asking is, if I am a problem for not trying, do you want me to leave, and the other tired people to leave, leaving Lusternia smaller but with only people who want to try? Would that be better? I'm not trying to be snide, this is an actual question I want the people winning to answer.
Well, why can't it be changed to work the same as timewarp/temporaryinsanity in how it stacks/is cured? Just make it a ice cure or a slush cure instead of steam etc. Mirrored abilities is the best way to ensure balance across organizations. I'd make Serenwilde work on the same bleeding synergy. The EFFECTS of bleeding would also change, since apparently it causing damage to vitals is the problem. So could make bleeding either slow a cure balance, make physical affs harder to cure, or reduce the amount of health recovered from sipping healing (though that is close damaging vitals). Or some other effect.
Clot just costing less mana seems ok. Basically it makes it so you need higher levels of bleeding to achieve equivalent levels of mana drain. But I'd say change bleeding entirely to work more similarly to how every other affliction in the game working. It seems strange that after a curing overhaul, when everything is on a select few balances, we still have 'oh but wait, bleeding is its own herb + command cure because reasons'.
Basically, I'd want to make bleeding exactly the same as timewarp/temporary insanity. Have Nekotai + Shofangi give bleeding in mirrored ways. Change redcap if needed to something that better synergies with New Bleed. Yea, it's a big change across a couple of different things, but it also doesn't seem insurmountable. And if change is what people want, then you have to start with something.
You say 'not truly solve the complaints being made', and now I'm confused. I thought bleeding was explicitly the problem? This isn't me saying this, this is the opinion of people who think Glomdoring is too powerful in this very thread.
So while classes do have active mana drains to pursue that kill method, it is weighted towards those that also have passive mana draining (a la bleeding or song powers etc). I'm going to make up a skillname and apply a value to what it does so that we all have something to work with to continue this discussion:
Syntax: SANGUINESWIPE <target>
Damage type: 100% Cutting
Applies an amount of bleeding to the target equal to the amount of damage it would apply normally.
So, since it is a cutting attack, let's just saying it does 500 bleeding after all resistances and damage reduction, which is reasonable to assume that someone with a 13/13 cutting buff would do at least 500 damage with a weapon attack. How does this get handled? Well, by itself, it isn't going to do much or really cause any threat as now the attacker is off balance and that amount can be clotted and chervil'd safely. Now if we have two people doing this on balance, now we're up to 1000 bleeding every 2 seconds and things become dicey. My proposition for how to change bleed is diminishing returns on how much can be applied. These are just theory values and are open for discussion:
100 bleeding - reduce incoming bleeding by 10%
250 bleeding - reduce incoming bleeding by 25%
500 bleeding - reduce incoming bleeding by 50%
Eating chervil applies a short, non-strippable, buff that keeps your highest bleeding resistance for ten seconds. Now we're looking at a way to cope with lots of bleeding. Back to my example, you get smashed with SanguineSwipe and hit the 50% reduction, you eat a chervil to heal some of the bleeding, and now as they continue to swipe at you, are effectively applying 250 bleed instead of 500. It doesn't really take away from the actual attacks meant to cause huge amounts of bleeding, but truly counters the small passive bleeds as that number is dwindled.
Simply, it's an affliction that also directly pressures two separate vitals (health and mana).
All other synergies have multiple steps and requirements to achieve a kill. You can timewarp and aeon someone all you like but that won't kill them. But with bleed, you can literally just spam bleed and they'd eventually die, either by not clotting (health runs out) or by clotting and running out of mana until you can clot no more (...health runs out). In group combat (let's be honest, the only combat that really matters), this effect becomes even more deadly.
If you really want to fix bleed, address that. Or, adjust timewarp and tempinsanity or dustaffs (still lol) to have similar effects.
Accountability is necessary.
Back on track, I'm good with the changes recommended so far, whether a base aff or leaving it as is and altering how it gets added onto. Though this could probably become it's own thread so that this can return to what it was originally about, numbers advantage and why it feels hopeless. I'll make it a poll thread and just link this page in the OP.
However, the entire point of this post is that balance doesn't matter right now because numbers win. What can we do to spread PK players more evenly?
Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.
It won't happen, though. So onto other ideas. Ah well.
Also, I have seen some hold back. I literally am not playing in my favorite org because of this. That means I did at least put my money where my mouth is. I also suggested more than once that a 2v2v2 would work out better.
2 Possible (Realistic) Options:
Option 1:
Glom/Seren
Celest/Gaudi
Mag/Halli
Option 2:
Glom/Seren
Celest/Halli
Mag/Gaudi
The big problem is that an org, if it knows it can't easily take a village (for example), is that they show up to become bodyguards for their allies. Essentially, the winning org gets to prop up their puppets.
For revolts, my rough idea is that if an org holds more than 3 villages, then each member of that org that enters an uninfluenced village will cause village feelings to drain away from all their owned villages. This drained amount has to be significant enough to be noticeable.
And if my above idea is taken, then I have a further revamp of revolts in mind:
1- Remove the hardcoded group revolts (Talthos-Dairuchi, Estelbar-Acknor, so on and so forth).
2- Villages will instead revolt if their feelings towards their master org hits the lowest. I think it's -3 or -4 from neutral? I've forgotten. So if, for example, Glomdoring owns 6 villages (as it does now) and it insists on bodyguarding for Gaudiguch at a Dairuchi revolt, then they would eventually cause all their six villages to revolt, too. This is why the feelings drain I was talking about above has to be significant.
I'm thinking: one single member of Glomdoring (to stay consistent with our example) will drain away 1 level of feelings per 5 minutes they stay inside. Cumulative, so it can't be gamed easily by darting in/out of the area.
If there are 7 levels of feelings in total (-3, 0, 3), then 35 minutes of one person from Glomdoring bodyguarding in the example Dairuchi revolt would cause all Glom villages to revolt.
The more Gloms who bodyguard for the revolt, the worse the effects. 7 Gloms who enter the village would cause theirs to revolt in one tick.
3- If a master org manages to maintain positive feelings, then it'd just keep using the old system: the village would have a chance to revolt 8? RL days from when it was taken.
Biggest danger I see is that people can break alt rules, to force an org's villages to revolt. I don't really have a solution for that, other than make it an IP bannable offense.
Accountability is necessary.
I don't think deleting orgs is an actual option.
An dynamic alliance system in a trinity has the advantage that you can steer the population, so if the population gets out of wack you can create new alliances that are more balanced.
Those are theories though, in reality alliances will not shift so easily because you build relationships with people in your alliance. Likewise it would be hard to play with 'enemy' orgs cause sometimes things happened which egoes oocly.
I wish to point out as long as alliances are not mechanicly recognised, no pvp gating based on numbers will work unless the numbers are so low the game might as well be a wargames arena event.
<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg">https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg</a>Hard coded limits, again, what's the problem? The causing feelings to go down system that Anak suggested seems fine to me, too, because, in practicality, it seems the same as a hard coded limit system. If Glomdoring cannot physical enter any villages during a revolt after they've taken 3, for example, then they can't play bodyguard to another org, either. So numbers balance out. Right?
(I'm also against the empire idea because it seems that's exactly what the problem is. The Holy Glomdoring Empire has risen. So. Isn't that what we want to avoid?)