@Minkahmet If you have kept up with the forums in this past month or two, you would see those messages of "git gud" that Anaklusmos constantly brings up. Also, just because they do/say something doesn't make the forums a hot mess. If anything, the forums are a mess because anything slightly controversial gets closed. All it takes is someone getting heated and poof, the thread is derailed and closed. Heck, Orael has already stated this thread is close, we're just another bad remark away.
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?)
Simple, if you force people out of conflict mechanics, they will find ways around them. Take domoths where Glomdoring often gave domoths to both Celest and Gaudiguch so they could fight in both. The same will happen in villages if you start messing with harsh discouragement systems. These people are playing cause they enjoy pvp more so than the limited worth of the reward for said pvp. (This is obviously not true for all Glomdoring players but at least some).
Even if they want the reward these people that play for pvp will just make alts in their allied orgs.
That is the big flaw. You need to make pvp possible while also making it balanced, not balance by making it impossible to participate by a certain group.
Biggest thing that has always stopped me even entertaining the notion of changing to another city/commune has to be the cost of forgetting/learning three new skillsets when you are tri-trans. Currently, you lose 20% of the 1,715 lessons upon forgetting a skillset permanently (343 lessons). If you decide to take up a skillset that falls in a different lesson pool (for example forgetting Healing, which is in the "Willpower" skillset and transferring lessons to Hunting, which is in the "Communion" skillset) you lose a further 30% of your lessons - another 412 lessons.
Converting this over to credits, if you change to a new city/commune and change archetype, to return to tri-trans, you are looking at up to 378 credits being spent purely on lessons in a worst-case scenario, or 174 credits just to change to something within the same archetype, assuming they can learn the same tertiary skills (For example Illuminati can not learn the healing skillset, if I am not mistaken - according to the wiki, they can learn Hexes or Tarot)
I think that it should be given some consideration to lessen this prohibitive cost, given the current situation of Lusternia, or perhaps, like reincarnation, an option/command be made available that gives a one-off opportunity to forget your skillsets without penalty.
Never put passion before principle. Even if you win, you lose.
If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
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?)
Simple, if you force people out of conflict mechanics, they will find ways around them. Take domoths where Glomdoring often gave domoths to both Celest and Gaudiguch so they could fight in both. The same will happen in villages if you start messing with harsh discouragement systems. These people are playing cause they enjoy pvp more so than the limited worth of the reward for said pvp. (This is obviously not true for all Glomdoring players but at least some).
Even if they want the reward these people that play for pvp will just make alts in their allied orgs.
That is the big flaw. You need to make pvp possible while also making it balanced, not balance by making it impossible to participate by a certain group.
1. In theory, yes. In practical terms, though, what workaround is there? Glomdoring gives the first six villages to its allies, then takes the next 3. That's still 5 villages for the other orgs to have with no competition. And, those last three villages the Glomdoring takes, is just Glomdoring fighting - ie. more equal odds (at least, theoretically speaking).
2. Fair enough, it will definitely disincentivize people who play for PvP. Hard to find that balance.
Perhaps a system could be implemented to allow for transfers and without losing lessons. Let's use you, Kagato, and say you re going to leave Celest. You decide to approach Alaksanteri about joining Gaudiguch instead and come to an agreement that you would be accepted. A new command could be added to those that can citizen to cities/communes:
CITIZEN person AS TRANSFER, would then send a prompt to the person to either AGREE or TRANSFER TO GAUDIGUCH CONFIRM, whatever method is decided upon. This would then in one command, have Kagato leave Celest and forget their currect class skills, refunding them to their main lesson pools (Body/Empathy/Mind/Artistry/Spirit) so that they can be freely transferred between those pools at no penalty. As Kagato pointed out, Healing would go to Spirit instead of Willpower. This then allows them to blend in at no loss and leaving inactive skills alone, with those following the normal penalties for forgetting. How's this sound?
I would say the bigger problem is the character is more than a set of abilities. Some kind of ability to wipe the slate clean and start in a new org. Or just transfer artifacts. That'd be ideal. If your character has existed for 15 real life years, you can transfer all your artifacts to a new character!
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.
"Taking time to help build others up" will literally get you nowhere. That's the point and the problem. You can stay logged in and training Serenwilde, for example, for 24/7 until you're blue in the face, and you still won't get as far as Glomdoring can because of the superiority of their skills and the raw resources (artifacts, buffs, etc.) they've amassed using those skills over the years.
It has been tried. It has failed. "Gitting gud" is not the problem; Glomdoring is.
I would say the bigger problem is the character is more than a set of abilities. Some kind of ability to wipe the slate clean and start in a new org. Or just transfer artifacts. That'd be ideal. If your character has existed for 15 real life years, you can transfer all your artifacts to a new character!
I would love this. I've toyed in the past with the idea of starting again but the thought of losing all the shiny things I've accumulated over 9 RL years is enough to nip the thought in the bud.
They went with Imperian's model, which implies that the 10-9-8 came from higher above (IRE HQ).
Also, I disagree that Glom is wholly innocent in perpetuating Pax Glomdoring. The foundation (mechanical superiority of Glom skills) lies mostly under the admin's jurisdiction, sure, but the fact that players defend and distract from this issue ("our synergy is as good as yours", "git gud", etc) means they share in the blame.
Where does anyone say wholly innocent?
It's implied by the posts of Glom players throughout the forums. "Let's not generalize!" or "Not all Gloms!" is the usual indicator.
In any case, repeating it now and again makes it a bit harder for Glom to falsememory away via numerous distractions.
Furthermore, another constant snide comment that should be called out: "You might not like the synergy your org was given over another's, but, if you could make things work some of the time wouldn't that alone be a huge change?"
Essentially, you're telling us to live with what we have despite it being second-class, and by golly, we should be happy with the scraps we get. No. That's not how balance works.
Next call out: "prove your claims". We already have. Check QW. POLITICS. DOMOTH STATUS. Glom and Friends have dominated Lusternia for years, and even when they weren't on "top" (the last time was during Falmiis's heyday, I think?), they weren't as low as what other orgs have sunk to. That's a good indicator that there's something wrong with Glomdoring as an org: even with a barebones crew, they can still win fights. And it's not because everyone else is terrible; Glom's skills and synergy are just vastly superior. See my analogy with the kayak vs the speedboat.
If Glom and Friends would just sit down and actually work with the rest of the game instead of waving falsememory all over the place, we'd get somewhere. All of the above ("at least you get something", "prove your claims") are yet another salvo of distractions from the real problem: Glomdoring.
'Not all gloms' nor 'let's not generalize' in no way I know of means, wholly innocent. Unless you think that 'not all gloms' or 'let's not generalize' actually means 'no gloms ever'.
Perhaps, if there was less exaggeration we'd have better discussions?
Furthermore, another constant snide comment that should be called out: "You might not like the synergy your org was given over another's, but, if you could make things work some of the time wouldn't that alone be a huge change?"
Essentially, you're telling us to live with what we have despite it being second-class, and by golly, we should be happy with the scraps we get. No. That's not how balance works.
When I'm snide I fail to hide it that well.
If I was unclear let me explain. I think there have been fights where the other side was a challenge and in a few cases very difficult. I fail to see how a couple to a few more on the other side would have not make it extremely difficult to impossible for us to prevail.
There has in my opinion been a move on the needle. To me that indicates that the needle can move. This does not mean nothing else should be done. It does mean, I don't believe things are as absolutist as some claim.
No one is telling you to live with what you have, unless by live you think I mean stick together and keep trying in the meantime.
What I do believe is if you had all the people who gave up and just quit we'd be having a different discussion.
Next call out: "prove your claims". We already have. Check QW. POLITICS. DOMOTH STATUS. Glom and Friends have dominated Lusternia for years, and even when they weren't on "top" (the last time was during Falmiis's heyday, I think?), they weren't as low as what other orgs have sunk to. That's a good indicator that there's something wrong with Glomdoring as an org: even with a barebones crew, they can still win fights. And it's not because everyone else is terrible; Glom's skills and synergy are just vastly superior. See my analogy with the kayak vs the speedboat.
Those aren't the claims I or anyone I can think of have or are talking about. Who anywhere has been saying Glom doesn't dominate or Glom isn't a force to recon with?
The closest I can think of that might be something you were referring to is that I said something like I think even if you have the Glom fighters other skills they'd probably prevail. I think for instance Glom would wreak the basin with halli skills.
And the last is where we disagree. I think a few of Gloms fighters are generally better than everyone else. I also think when none of those few fighters are around Glom doesn't do so great. Sure, I could be mistaken, but when those few are around the raids seem to stop.
I think I have been clear that I think there are more than one thing at play here. If not, maybe this helps towards clearing things up a bit.
So let me reverse things a bit. Do you think if the other side had twice the people they'd always lose? Just trying to narrow your stance a bit.
No one has to ask me to play with them. But you know, when I left Gaudi no Seren, no Mag asked me to join them. One Halli did and we talked about it. So yes, I do feel you all can be better about recruitment. Will that alone fix the problem, most likely not, but might close the gap some.
If Glom and Friends would just sit down and actually work with the rest of the game instead of waving falsememory all over the place, we'd get somewhere. All of the above ("at least you get something", "prove your claims") are yet another salvo of distractions from the real problem: Glomdoring.
I've only been in Glom a couple of weeks and even I know that isn't what falsememory is. Honestly, the conversation would move ahead better if others would quit dwelling so much in the past and expecting other players to provide them therapy [See that's me being snide].
Look, I get there's been a lot of player hurt and dashed hopes, to some extent all around (though for different reasons). But, too many of these threads seem more about this pain and too little on how to move forward.
So when I say, make a case I mean for what should be done. What exactly does one expect to see, what would be the impact, and what exactly is being asked to be implemented. If what I get back is, "Just change crap" then it sounds like I'm being asked to do someone's homework for them.
I know what I am asking isn't easy. But I also know that the only way to know if one's idea is even reasonable is for them to do the work and come up with a full design (alone or with others).
What I do know from experience is people will ask for changes and that most people seem poor at understanding the effects of those changes.
@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.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by nodes? If you mean the mechanics didn't mean two-sides and meant three? Then I don't know I agree. Certainly, there were times when Achaea had two sides (mostly) and there were times even when Lusternia was new where there were two sides and others when there were three.
It does seem to me when there were three sides it was easier for people to break alliances and go to three, but even then that didn't mean there weren't a lot of, oh your org is fighting the third org, I'll help.
Celest's and Mag's peak seemed more spaced to me. Maybe that's changed.
Let's model things out. In 2vs2vs2 what happens when there's a conflict?
Gaudi and Celest go for a domoth. Does Glom and Mag fight and Halli and Seren just sit on their butts? Or does it become Gaudi and Celest vs Glom, Mag, Halli, and Seren?
>The problem currently is there are 0 times in which Halli/Mag/Seren pose a threat during Gaudi/Celest peak.
Just for completeness. But this cannot possibly be a problem with Glom's skills. So when I say it isn't entirely about Glom skills, why do I get so much crap [not saying from you].
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.
Timequakes are expandable and given they're pockets they would be the perfect place to try out new systems.
Why don't you try asking for a timequake to not have bleed work and another to not have aeon work and see if they bite?
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.
I agree in general to this.
By focusing on bleed (which still might be the right thing to do), it diverts from the question of if all orgs should have more inter-org synergy.
Imagine you're a sole temp-insanity, temp-timewarp, or marks builder in your alliance it kinds sucks to see those mana kills in some orgs and not others, etc.
This also means that it can be really hard for a mixed alliance to defend against a coherent one.
Unless all orgs get vitals synergies, bleed will always remain king. This bit here: "By focusing on bleed (which still might be the right thing to do), it diverts from the question of if all orgs should have more inter-org synergy." is in itself a diversion. You're trying to separate the two when in fact they are one huge problem with how Glom skills shape up versus the rest.
Not the only problem, but it's the one that pins all of it together.
Steingrim man, one post, not four . Some of those threads mentioned have stated ways they'd like to see things fixed, before derailing and getting shut down. Ideas have been put out there, I even have this bleed as an affliction one going to hopefully make some progress. What bothers me is when skills are brought up, regardless who has them, the same thing always gets said, "I'd totally wreck if I had those skills." An example was Enadonella talking about Moondancer skills when clear power differences were drawn between Moondancer and Shadowdancer, rather than acknowledging that SD is just better put together to help their org...and solo. Or when org synergy was the topic at hand it got derailed that, "Well if we had Halli skills, we'd totally destroy you still." instead of acknowledging that bleed is just a better synergy.
We're still on the first step of any debate, which is acknowledgement of your opposition's point of view. Being incapable of acknowledging their differing opinion is crippling to the progression of the discussion, any discussion. For clarification, I am only referring to those that have done this on the forum, IF THIS ISN'T YOU, I'm not discussing you! Ughh...bothers me more that I have to disclaim that more than failure to acknowledge things. But, I'm only part of the problem unless I can show that I myself can acknowledge the points being made. Let us go back to the "if we had your skills" argument being made. Sure, if we took things into a controlled environment and say Innon and Steingrim swapped skillsets and Steingrim won hands down, does that prove that point? Probably not, for individual skill shines there. If we scaled the experiment to what commonly happens in conflict, Innon x9 vs Steingrim x3 99.99% of the time, the nine Innons are going to stomp. Does that prove that Glom skills need to be nerfed? Probably not, for now numbers shine.
It's hard to debate what skillsets are the most potent, in solo or group combat, so you kind of have to make your own value scale and stick to it. Even a rudimentary system of:
Does it do damage of any type? 1 Point How many afflictions does it give? x Point(s) What's the cost? power 1, vital 2, no cost 3 etc
Then you can start to piece really crude valuations and weigh them against each other. From there, since that system won't make any clear definitions, take people from both sides that genuinely want to work on it, and theorycraft viable win conditions, with the opposition giving suggestions and thoughts and the owners countering with their own trials and reasons why it doesn't work. After that, scientific method that mofo and see if the strat is indeed viable, and from there give that class a tic. Compare classes of the same archetype with how many tics it has and that should give a better foundation than the point valuation. FROM THERE you have to look at how your direct allies, org members, can speed up your kill method, and by how much. Take the time it takes to complete the kill condition solo then the time it takes with assistance. The ratio will be the final score, as it has class skill weights, viable strateg(y/ies), and synergy now being accounted for.
I am saying that with the current situation we can't discuss balance because we don't have a healthy game. See wildnodes. You have three orgs passing the wildnodes every other other week. This is not healthy and is literally min/maxing the event .
Let's take the idea of a 2v2v2 wild nodes with the following alliances: Glom/seren, Celest/Gaudi, and Mag/Halli. Let's for this example use the ranking system of number of combatants and their skill level (completely fictional). G/S will be ranked 2 of three, Celest/Gaudi will be ranked 1st of three, and we will say the weakest is Halli/Mag.
Ex 1: C/G has 4 nodes, and G/S has 2. H/M can either one try to steal from C/G or wait for G/S to go for another from C/G then try to take both that G/S has. There is no reason for H/M to help G/S more than momentarily because they would want to win.
I disagree with a 2v2v2 turning into a 4v2. I feel like that is just a fear to keep the current status quo. Mag will never align with Glom. Celest will never with Mag. Gaudi as mentioned will never with Halli. A simple true disfavor from a god/goddess will solve that really quick.
I am saying that with the current situation we can't discuss balance because we don't have a healthy game. See wildnodes. You have three orgs passing the wildnodes every other other week. This is not healthy and is literally min/maxing the event .
Let's take the idea of a 2v2v2 wild nodes with the following alliances: Glom/seren, Celest/Gaudi, and Mag/Halli. Let's for this example use the ranking system of number of combatants and their skill level (completely fictional). G/S will be ranked 2 of three, Celest/Gaudi will be ranked 1st of three, and we will say the weakest is Halli/Mag.
Ex 1: C/G has 4 nodes, and G/S has 2. H/M can either one try to steal from C/G or wait for G/S to go for another from C/G then try to take both that G/S has. There is no reason for H/M to help G/S more than momentarily because they would want to win.
I disagree with a 2v2v2 turning into a 4v2. I feel like that is just a fear to keep the current status quo. Mag will never align with Glom. Celest will never with Mag. Gaudi as mentioned will never with Halli. A simple true disfavor from a god/goddess will solve that really quick.
As much as I love GlomSeren as a duo, here's the reality of what this will lead to: 1. 2 of these alliances will team up for an event. And the next event. And oh look, we're friends, don't betray us! 2. 'How dare you ally with our mortal enemies, eat a disfavor!' 3. Go to forums, create thread, this is so stupid, admins shouldn't be interfering in player politics!
Like I said, would love if there was a way this wouldn't just turn into a shitshow. I'd even be ok with a 4v2, Glom-Seren vs the world, let's dance!
I am saying that with the current situation we can't discuss balance because we don't have a healthy game. See wildnodes. You have three orgs passing the wildnodes every other other week. This is not healthy and is literally min/maxing the event .
Let's take the idea of a 2v2v2 wild nodes with the following alliances: Glom/seren, Celest/Gaudi, and Mag/Halli. Let's for this example use the ranking system of number of combatants and their skill level (completely fictional). G/S will be ranked 2 of three, Celest/Gaudi will be ranked 1st of three, and we will say the weakest is Halli/Mag.
Ex 1: C/G has 4 nodes, and G/S has 2. H/M can either one try to steal from C/G or wait for G/S to go for another from C/G then try to take both that G/S has. There is no reason for H/M to help G/S more than momentarily because they would want to win.
I disagree with a 2v2v2 turning into a 4v2. I feel like that is just a fear to keep the current status quo. Mag will never align with Glom. Celest will never with Mag. Gaudi as mentioned will never with Halli. A simple true disfavor from a god/goddess will solve that really quick.
I think you misunderstood. Take a stack of bills and walk though the wrong , part of town. They don't have to ally for you to be facing multiple challengers.
Alliances reduce the number of people you have to fight. If you're trying to upgrade a domoth in a 2v2v2 then why aren't four groups not trying to take your shiny? And if four people are trying to take your shiny, then it simply doesn't matter if they're alllied or not. What matters is you have a lot of foes to deal with.
Now I assume what will happen is something in-between what you've said and what I have just said.
I am saying that with the current situation we can't discuss balance because we don't have a healthy game. See wildnodes. You have three orgs passing the wildnodes every other other week. This is not healthy and is literally min/maxing the event .
Let's take the idea of a 2v2v2 wild nodes with the following alliances: Glom/seren, Celest/Gaudi, and Mag/Halli. Let's for this example use the ranking system of number of combatants and their skill level (completely fictional). G/S will be ranked 2 of three, Celest/Gaudi will be ranked 1st of three, and we will say the weakest is Halli/Mag.
Ex 1: C/G has 4 nodes, and G/S has 2. H/M can either one try to steal from C/G or wait for G/S to go for another from C/G then try to take both that G/S has. There is no reason for H/M to help G/S more than momentarily because they would want to win.
I disagree with a 2v2v2 turning into a 4v2. I feel like that is just a fear to keep the current status quo. Mag will never align with Glom. Celest will never with Mag. Gaudi as mentioned will never with Halli. A simple true disfavor from a god/goddess will solve that really quick.
I think you misunderstood. Take a stack of bills and walk though the wrong , part of town. They don't have to ally for you to be facing multiple challengers.
Alliances reduce the number of people you have to fight. If you're trying to upgrade a domoth in a 2v2v2 then why aren't four groups not trying to take your shiny? And if four people are trying to take your shiny, then it simply doesn't matter if they're alllied or not. What matters is you have a lot of foes to deal with.
Now I assume what will happen is something in-between what you've said and what I have just said.
Actually, in domoths it could be three if neither you or your ally has the other domoth. The thing you leave out is let's say Glom/Seren is claiming then Halli/mag steals it. So Gaudi is just going to help halli/mag? I seriously doubt that. Also, Ein can true disfavor the Gaudi's that helped Halli which would be perfectly IC. This example had Celest locked out. Likely Gaudi would sit this one out unless they had strong numbers compared to the other two groups.
Your example is assuming the current all or nothing theme which has destroyed any competition in Lusty. For example, a man with a stack of money walks down the street. People are taking the money for themselves not everyone as a group. Maybe the man loses some of the money, but keeps more than the other two people trying to take the money. This would result in the win if the domoth threshold was met. Also, let's ignore the connotation that the man owns the money since no org or group of orgs own a domoth. Now both other sides attack at the same time and let's say person A gets the entire stack. Person B is going to take from person A with the original man still in the mix trying to take it back.
I am saying that with the current situation we can't discuss balance because we don't have a healthy game. See wildnodes. You have three orgs passing the wildnodes every other other week. This is not healthy and is literally min/maxing the event .
Let's take the idea of a 2v2v2 wild nodes with the following alliances: Glom/seren, Celest/Gaudi, and Mag/Halli. Let's for this example use the ranking system of number of combatants and their skill level (completely fictional). G/S will be ranked 2 of three, Celest/Gaudi will be ranked 1st of three, and we will say the weakest is Halli/Mag.
Ex 1: C/G has 4 nodes, and G/S has 2. H/M can either one try to steal from C/G or wait for G/S to go for another from C/G then try to take both that G/S has. There is no reason for H/M to help G/S more than momentarily because they would want to win.
I disagree with a 2v2v2 turning into a 4v2. I feel like that is just a fear to keep the current status quo. Mag will never align with Glom. Celest will never with Mag. Gaudi as mentioned will never with Halli. A simple true disfavor from a god/goddess will solve that really quick.
As much as I love GlomSeren as a duo, here's the reality of what this will lead to: 1. 2 of these alliances will team up for an event. And the next event. And oh look, we're friends, don't betray us! 2. 'How dare you ally with our mortal enemies, eat a disfavor!' 3. Go to forums, create thread, this is so stupid, admins shouldn't be interfering in player politics!
Like I said, would love if there was a way this wouldn't just turn into a shitshow. I'd even be ok with a 4v2, Glom-Seren vs the world, let's dance!
If admins don't interfere then the game is going to die. Also, look at when Celest and Mag were forced to be allies because of game mechanics, so there is a history of this happening. Moreover, Halli admins I am told said no to a Gaudi alliance back when Mag flipped. Moreover, as Esoneyuna said, Gaudi admins said no to Halli/Gaudi alliance. Let's not pretend the admins don't steer us. That is literally their job.
If admins don't interfere then the game is going to die. Also, look at when Celest and Mag were forced to be allies because of game mechanics, so there is a history of this happening. Moreover, Halli admins I am told said no to a Gaudi alliance back when Mag flipped. Moreover, as Esoneyuna said, Gaudi admins said no to Halli/Gaudi alliance. Let's not pretend the admins don't steer us. That is literally their job.
I'm not. I'm saying players hate it when they DO steer us. Admin-enforced alliances is ok, but man, just wait in six months when you see the rant threads pop up.
If admins don't interfere then the game is going to die. Also, look at when Celest and Mag were forced to be allies because of game mechanics, so there is a history of this happening. Moreover, Halli admins I am told said no to a Gaudi alliance back when Mag flipped. Moreover, as Esoneyuna said, Gaudi admins said no to Halli/Gaudi alliance. Let's not pretend the admins don't steer us. That is literally their job.
I'm not. I'm saying players hate it when they DO steer us. Admin-enforced alliances is ok, but man, just wait in six months when you see the rant threads pop up.
We(playerbase) beg them to create RP, but the moment it interferes with our own ideas que the complaints. That is on us though.
The real solution is destroy 2-3 orgs, but so much nice stuff and work is destroyed with it. You will also make a lot of people upset.
If admins don't interfere then the game is going to die. Also, look at when Celest and Mag were forced to be allies because of game mechanics, so there is a history of this happening. Moreover, Halli admins I am told said no to a Gaudi alliance back when Mag flipped. Moreover, as Esoneyuna said, Gaudi admins said no to Halli/Gaudi alliance. Let's not pretend the admins don't steer us. That is literally their job.
I'm not. I'm saying players hate it when they DO steer us. Admin-enforced alliances is ok, but man, just wait in six months when you see the rant threads pop up.
We(playerbase) beg them to create RP, but the moment it interferes with our own ideas que the complaints. That is on us though.
The real solution is destroy 2-3 orgs, but so much nice stuff and work is destroyed with it. You will also make a lot of people upset.
And would result in additional players leaving, likely more than just a few.
When the admin have forced alliance changes in the (more distant) past, it didn't go down well with players.
It's not forcing an alliance like then. It is however forcing you to not be friendly with the true (in the lore) enemy of your org.
Edit: Except Glom/Seren which I'm not sure what their deal is with each other anymore.
As far as I can recall, Glom/Seren really only formed alliances in the past when their common interests were threatened (i.e. Faethorn/Queen Maeve), and even then it was temporary. RP- and lore-wise, an alliance between those two forests does not make sense, since they... well, would like to destroy/fundamentally change each other, unless Seren has changed their stance over the last few years.
Thematically, I'd think that Glom/Gaudi + Mag/Halli + Celest/Seren would make the most sense, or Glom/Mag + Halli/Seren + Celest/Gaudi -- but that's just my musing and I'm not advocating either scenario in particular.
Edit #1: grammar.
Edit #2: If not a hardcap, I actually also like the idea posted by @Anaklusmos regarding diminishing feelings in owned villages after a certain number are owned when an org participates in other revolts. RP-wise I could see the villages growing jealous or dissenting about a single org being too greedy or what-have-you... but maybe have the negative-feeling tics be a chance tic rather than a definitive one, to prevent all the owned villages from revolting at once (because several hours of revolts is... meh)?
Tonight amidst the mountaintops And endless starless night Singing how the wind was lost Before an earthly flight
To also be realistic, Mag/Glom were best friends for a long long time. Even with the current game-state, Mag/Glom has had more years as friends/allies than enemies in sum. The reason for that ill-will is already gone, since the players that caused that wedge are gone. Instead, now we have cousins fighting each other just because they grew up on the other side of the road from one another.
To also be realistic, Mag/Glom were best friends for a long long time. Even with the current game-state, Mag/Glom has had more years as friends/allies than enemies in sum. The reason for that ill-will is already gone, since the players that caused that wedge are gone. Instead, now we have cousins fighting each other just because they grew up on the other side of the road from one another.
Problem is Glom with anyone other than Seren/Gaudi would probably cause the same issue in the 2v2v2 situation.
1v1v1v1v1v1 would be the best, and it is possible. See: Achaea.
The only thing that's """forcing""" alliances are the players. Jk also smobs have been so overtuned that you need a lot of people that no single org has to be able to kill them.
Comments
Even if they want the reward these people that play for pvp will just make alts in their allied orgs.
That is the big flaw. You need to make pvp possible while also making it balanced, not balance by making it impossible to participate by a certain group.
Converting this over to credits, if you change to a new city/commune and change archetype, to return to tri-trans, you are looking at up to 378 credits being spent purely on lessons in a worst-case scenario, or 174 credits just to change to something within the same archetype, assuming they can learn the same tertiary skills (For example Illuminati can not learn the healing skillset, if I am not mistaken - according to the wiki, they can learn Hexes or Tarot)
I think that it should be given some consideration to lessen this prohibitive cost, given the current situation of Lusternia, or perhaps, like reincarnation, an option/command be made available that gives a one-off opportunity to forget your skillsets without penalty.
If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
2. Fair enough, it will definitely disincentivize people who play for PvP. Hard to find that balance.
CITIZEN person AS TRANSFER, would then send a prompt to the person to either AGREE or TRANSFER TO GAUDIGUCH CONFIRM, whatever method is decided upon. This would then in one command, have Kagato leave Celest and forget their currect class skills, refunding them to their main lesson pools (Body/Empathy/Mind/Artistry/Spirit) so that they can be freely transferred between those pools at no penalty. As Kagato pointed out, Healing would go to Spirit instead of Willpower. This then allows them to blend in at no loss and leaving inactive skills alone, with those following the normal penalties for forgetting. How's this sound?
It has been tried. It has failed. "Gitting gud" is not the problem; Glomdoring is.
Accountability is necessary.
'Not all gloms' nor 'let's not generalize' in no way I know of means, wholly innocent. Unless you think that 'not all gloms' or 'let's not generalize' actually means 'no gloms ever'.
Perhaps, if there was less exaggeration we'd have better discussions?
When I'm snide I fail to hide it that well.
If I was unclear let me explain. I think there have been fights where the other side was a challenge and in a few cases very difficult. I fail to see how a couple to a few more on the other side would have not make it extremely difficult to impossible for us to prevail.
There has in my opinion been a move on the needle. To me that indicates that the needle can move. This does not mean nothing else should be done. It does mean, I don't believe things are as absolutist as some claim.
No one is telling you to live with what you have, unless by live you think I mean stick together and keep trying in the meantime.
What I do believe is if you had all the people who gave up and just quit we'd be having a different discussion.
Those aren't the claims I or anyone I can think of have or are talking about. Who anywhere has been saying Glom doesn't dominate or Glom isn't a force to recon with?
The closest I can think of that might be something you were referring to is that I said something like I think even if you have the Glom fighters other skills they'd probably prevail. I think for instance Glom would wreak the basin with halli skills.
And the last is where we disagree. I think a few of Gloms fighters are generally better than everyone else. I also think when none of those few fighters are around Glom doesn't do so great. Sure, I could be mistaken, but when those few are around the raids seem to stop.
I think I have been clear that I think there are more than one thing at play here. If not, maybe this helps towards clearing things up a bit.
So let me reverse things a bit. Do you think if the other side had twice the people they'd always lose? Just trying to narrow your stance a bit.
No one has to ask me to play with them. But you know, when I left Gaudi no Seren, no Mag asked me to join them. One Halli did and we talked about it. So yes, I do feel you all can be better about recruitment. Will that alone fix the problem, most likely not, but might close the gap some.
I've only been in Glom a couple of weeks and even I know that isn't what falsememory is. Honestly, the conversation would move ahead better if others would quit dwelling so much in the past and expecting other players to provide them therapy [See that's me being snide].
Look, I get there's been a lot of player hurt and dashed hopes, to some extent all around (though for different reasons). But, too many of these threads seem more about this pain and too little on how to move forward.
So when I say, make a case I mean for what should be done. What exactly does one expect to see, what would be the impact, and what exactly is being asked to be implemented. If what I get back is, "Just change crap" then it sounds like I'm being asked to do someone's homework for them.
I know what I am asking isn't easy. But I also know that the only way to know if one's idea is even reasonable is for them to do the work and come up with a full design (alone or with others).
What I do know from experience is people will ask for changes and that most people seem poor at understanding the effects of those changes.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by nodes? If you mean the mechanics didn't mean two-sides and meant three? Then I don't know I agree. Certainly, there were times when Achaea had two sides (mostly) and there were times even when Lusternia was new where there were two sides and others when there were three.
It does seem to me when there were three sides it was easier for people to break alliances and go to three, but even then that didn't mean there weren't a lot of, oh your org is fighting the third org, I'll help.
Celest's and Mag's peak seemed more spaced to me. Maybe that's changed.
Let's model things out. In 2vs2vs2 what happens when there's a conflict?
Gaudi and Celest go for a domoth. Does Glom and Mag fight and Halli and Seren just sit on their butts? Or does it become Gaudi and Celest vs Glom, Mag, Halli, and Seren?
>The problem currently is there are 0 times in which Halli/Mag/Seren pose a threat during Gaudi/Celest peak.
Just for completeness. But this cannot possibly be a problem with Glom's skills. So when I say it isn't entirely about Glom skills, why do I get so much crap [not saying from you].
Why don't you try asking for a timequake to not have bleed work and another to not have aeon work and see if they bite?
I agree in general to this.
By focusing on bleed (which still might be the right thing to do), it diverts from the question of if all orgs should have more inter-org synergy.
Imagine you're a sole temp-insanity, temp-timewarp, or marks builder in your alliance it kinds sucks to see those mana kills in some orgs and not others, etc.
This also means that it can be really hard for a mixed alliance to defend against a coherent one.
Not the only problem, but it's the one that pins all of it together.
Accountability is necessary.
We're still on the first step of any debate, which is acknowledgement of your opposition's point of view. Being incapable of acknowledging their differing opinion is crippling to the progression of the discussion, any discussion. For clarification, I am only referring to those that have done this on the forum, IF THIS ISN'T YOU, I'm not discussing you! Ughh...bothers me more that I have to disclaim that more than failure to acknowledge things. But, I'm only part of the problem unless I can show that I myself can acknowledge the points being made. Let us go back to the "if we had your skills" argument being made. Sure, if we took things into a controlled environment and say Innon and Steingrim swapped skillsets and Steingrim won hands down, does that prove that point? Probably not, for individual skill shines there. If we scaled the experiment to what commonly happens in conflict, Innon x9 vs Steingrim x3 99.99% of the time, the nine Innons are going to stomp. Does that prove that Glom skills need to be nerfed? Probably not, for now numbers shine.
It's hard to debate what skillsets are the most potent, in solo or group combat, so you kind of have to make your own value scale and stick to it. Even a rudimentary system of:
Does it do damage of any type? 1 Point
How many afflictions does it give? x Point(s)
What's the cost? power 1, vital 2, no cost 3 etc
Then you can start to piece really crude valuations and weigh them against each other. From there, since that system won't make any clear definitions, take people from both sides that genuinely want to work on it, and theorycraft viable win conditions, with the opposition giving suggestions and thoughts and the owners countering with their own trials and reasons why it doesn't work. After that, scientific method that mofo and see if the strat is indeed viable, and from there give that class a tic. Compare classes of the same archetype with how many tics it has and that should give a better foundation than the point valuation. FROM THERE you have to look at how your direct allies, org members, can speed up your kill method, and by how much. Take the time it takes to complete the kill condition solo then the time it takes with assistance. The ratio will be the final score, as it has class skill weights, viable strateg(y/ies), and synergy now being accounted for.
Let's take the idea of a 2v2v2 wild nodes with the following alliances: Glom/seren, Celest/Gaudi, and Mag/Halli. Let's for this example use the ranking system of number of combatants and their skill level (completely fictional). G/S will be ranked 2 of three, Celest/Gaudi will be ranked 1st of three, and we will say the weakest is Halli/Mag.
Ex 1: C/G has 4 nodes, and G/S has 2. H/M can either one try to steal from C/G or wait for G/S to go for another from C/G then try to take both that G/S has. There is no reason for H/M to help G/S more than momentarily because they would want to win.
I disagree with a 2v2v2 turning into a 4v2. I feel like that is just a fear to keep the current status quo. Mag will never align with Glom. Celest will never with Mag. Gaudi as mentioned will never with Halli. A simple true disfavor from a god/goddess will solve that really quick.
1. 2 of these alliances will team up for an event. And the next event. And oh look, we're friends, don't betray us!
2. 'How dare you ally with our mortal enemies, eat a disfavor!'
3. Go to forums, create thread, this is so stupid, admins shouldn't be interfering in player politics!
Like I said, would love if there was a way this wouldn't just turn into a shitshow. I'd even be ok with a 4v2, Glom-Seren vs the world, let's dance!
I think you misunderstood. Take a stack of bills and walk though the wrong , part of town. They don't have to ally for you to be facing multiple challengers.
Alliances reduce the number of people you have to fight. If you're trying to upgrade a domoth in a 2v2v2 then why aren't four groups not trying to take your shiny? And if four people are trying to take your shiny, then it simply doesn't matter if they're alllied or not. What matters is you have a lot of foes to deal with.
Now I assume what will happen is something in-between what you've said and what I have just said.
Actually, in domoths it could be three if neither you or your ally has the other domoth. The thing you leave out is let's say Glom/Seren is claiming then Halli/mag steals it. So Gaudi is just going to help halli/mag? I seriously doubt that. Also, Ein can true disfavor the Gaudi's that helped Halli which would be perfectly IC. This example had Celest locked out. Likely Gaudi would sit this one out unless they had strong numbers compared to the other two groups.
Your example is assuming the current all or nothing theme which has destroyed any competition in Lusty. For example, a man with a stack of money walks down the street. People are taking the money for themselves not everyone as a group. Maybe the man loses some of the money, but keeps more than the other two people trying to take the money. This would result in the win if the domoth threshold was met. Also, let's ignore the connotation that the man owns the money since no org or group of orgs own a domoth. Now both other sides attack at the same time and let's say person A gets the entire stack. Person B is going to take from person A with the original man still in the mix trying to take it back.
If admins don't interfere then the game is going to die. Also, look at when Celest and Mag were forced to be allies because of game mechanics, so there is a history of this happening. Moreover, Halli admins I am told said no to a Gaudi alliance back when Mag flipped. Moreover, as Esoneyuna said, Gaudi admins said no to Halli/Gaudi alliance. Let's not pretend the admins don't steer us. That is literally their job.
We(playerbase) beg them to create RP, but the moment it interferes with our own ideas que the complaints. That is on us though.
The real solution is destroy 2-3 orgs, but so much nice stuff and work is destroyed with it. You will also make a lot of people upset.
It's not forcing an alliance like then. It is however forcing you to not be friendly with the true (in the lore) enemy of your org.
Edit: Except Glom/Seren which I'm not sure what their deal is with each other anymore.
As far as I can recall, Glom/Seren really only formed alliances in the past when their common interests were threatened (i.e. Faethorn/Queen Maeve), and even then it was temporary. RP- and lore-wise, an alliance between those two forests does not make sense, since they... well, would like to destroy/fundamentally change each other, unless Seren has changed their stance over the last few years.
Thematically, I'd think that Glom/Gaudi + Mag/Halli + Celest/Seren would make the most sense, or Glom/Mag + Halli/Seren + Celest/Gaudi -- but that's just my musing and I'm not advocating either scenario in particular.
Edit #1: grammar.
Edit #2: If not a hardcap, I actually also like the idea posted by @Anaklusmos regarding diminishing feelings in owned villages after a certain number are owned when an org participates in other revolts. RP-wise I could see the villages growing jealous or dissenting about a single org being too greedy or what-have-you... but maybe have the negative-feeling tics be a chance tic rather than a definitive one, to prevent all the owned villages from revolting at once (because several hours of revolts is... meh)?
Tonight amidst the mountaintops
And endless starless night
Singing how the wind was lost
Before an earthly flight
Problem is Glom with anyone other than Seren/Gaudi would probably cause the same issue in the 2v2v2 situation.
The only thing that's """forcing""" alliances are the players. Jk also smobs have been so overtuned that you need a lot of people that no single org has to be able to kill them.
Accountability is necessary.