How is 1v1 better than 2v2? Like if you are against the idea of 2v2, should you not also be against the idea of 1v1? 2v2 at least allows some (theoretical) flexibility in alliances going forward, 1v1 would simply set any pop issues in stone forever?
I don't think you understand what the ratios are referring to. 2v2 is not equivalent to 1v1 in this context. If there are four orgs(what is normally meant when someone uses 2v2 about Lusternia) then that is four separate factions, where two and two have chosen to cooperate. 1v1 means there are only two factions, ie, two orgs that are competing. 1v1v1 means there are three factions, all in competition with each other.
The people in this thread who vocalized being against 2v2 did so because they wanting a system of shifting alliances so we don't get locked into a population imbalance. 1v1 is... exactly the same thing. To make it more clear, imagine this 1v1 that is created is Gaudi-Mag-Glom vs Halli-Celest-Seren. Ok, everyone cool with that?
Yeah, I don't think they were being very clear either. But no, I don't think it's accurate to say that 1v1 in Lusternia means that, for example, Halli/Mag/Seren = 1 org, Glom/Celest/Gaudi = 1 org. Theoretically the alliances could shift. That's a difference that doesn't exist in say, Aetolia. 1v1 there means all of Bloodloch and Spines vs all of Enorian and Duiran. Those alliances will not really shift because mechanically, they're constructed that way.
The idea is that either alliances here would not be allowed(1v1), or that the sides would be adjusted in some way(the 2v2 idea for four orgs). The latter I doubt would work very well, but a lot of depends more on whether or not classes are balanced and which orgs remain.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Status Quo is what causes the feelings of hurt from everyone - not - on Glomdoring's side right now. You have a winning side, that rotates & a losing side that just gets more frustrated in 2 vs 2 & 3 vs 3 If you go 1 vs 1 .... you just end up with one side massively dominating the longer time goes on and the other city will just die off So nothing changes, instead you'll just repalce the general hate of Glomdoring with a brand new name and the other city will die off
If this happens (Deletion of Orgs) this has to be fixed. You can't end up with a Winning side and a Losing side - only -. There will be winners, there will be losers. But a third party has to have the ability to intervene and reverse the fight.
Ex: Mags beats Celest in Wildnodes. Faethorn intervenes and kicks a wounded mag down, Celest comes back and fights faethorn instead, loses. Mag allies with celest and takes faethorn down then fights with each other.
Put penalties in place or a reason to force people --- Not --- to go for a 2 vs 1 alliance and you'll have a rotating winner every time. Temporary alliances are fine, alliances that last over 2 years of real life time (Just speculating) are not.
Edit: This is absolutly 100% unrelated to any combat complaints. It refers to landslide domination that creates a stale gameplay environment.
? Is this a response to me, or a completely new train of thought?
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
so sorry, just a response to Innon's comment. I'm a - very - slow poster. Let me fix that bubble a minute.
Not a problem just confused for a moment. Thank you.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Status Quo is what causes the feelings of hurt from everyone - not - on Glomdoring's side right now. You have a winning side, that rotates & a losing side that just gets more frustrated in 2 vs 2 & 3 vs 3 If you go 1 vs 1 .... you just end up with one side massively dominating the longer time goes on and the other city will just die off So nothing changes, instead you'll just repalce the general hate of Glomdoring with a brand new name and the other city will die off
If this happens (Deletion of Orgs) this has to be fixed. You can't end up with a Winning side and a Losing side - only -. There will be winners, there will be losers. But a third party has to have the ability to intervene and reverse the fight.
Ex: Mags beats Celest in Wildnodes. Faethorn intervenes and kicks a wounded mag down, Celest comes back and fights faethorn instead, loses. Mag allies with celest and takes faethorn down then fights with each other.
Put penalties in place or a reason to force people --- Not --- to go for a 2 vs 1 alliance and you'll have a rotating winner every time. Temporary alliances are fine, alliances that last over 2 years of real life time (Just speculating) are not.
Edit: This is absolutly 100% unrelated to any combat complaints. It refers to landslide domination that creates a stale gameplay environment.
I agree with you, but I don't know how that would work. IE, what penalties or reason to force rotating alliances? Mechanically, that could be difficult to implement, and forcing people to switch would cause other problems, namely resentment.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
@Afollia This is exactly what I would expect to happen with Divine intervention instead of mechanics. It is a bit like Mario Kart, and it would work best in 1v1v1. I really think this would be best for everyone. I think a prolonged winner of everything is not healthy. The sharing of the spoils is definitely not healthy.
Once again, please be respectful and productive in your conversations on this thread. I will either start deleting posts or close the thread if this devolves into bitterness and snark.
As I said before, 3 orgs did not exist in Lusternia long enough (4-5 months tops?) to really base any sort of conclusions. For those 4-5 months, the first few months were really players getting their feet on the ground because we had just opened, and the last month revolved around a lot of roleplay regarding the opening of Glomdoring. I have a feeling some people just keep thinking it was a lot longer time period before Glom opened than had actually passed (you can just look at event posts). Personally I don't think that's enough time to extrapolate any sort of conclusion.
As I understand it, Glomdoring wasn't really an active part of conflict when it was first released for some time, and it essentially had to sit out on its own for an extended period. During that time, it was just the original three with the occasional Glom hiccup, politics wise. Perhaps this might be skewing perceptions of the game's past?
That is sort of correct. Glom was the red headed step child for a long time. Celest and Seren were allied strongly. Mag stood on its own and didn't help glomdoring and also refused help from glomdoing. Glom wasn't even allowed to help mag for a good long time. Mag refused any aid.
It was sort of interesting before the introduction of astroglide the only way up to astral was via city nexuses so during wild nodes Celest and Seren went up through the pool of stars. Mag shut down their nexus and refused glom entry to Astral. So glom was locked out of wildnodes and it was seren/celest vs mag.
I remember that. It was around when Narsrim would constantly raid EtherGlom, and my midbie Ninjakari Shaddus died constantly trying to defend you when you refused to fight. Or when I'd spend irl days harvesting earwort for your shops so the Cantors and Spiritsingers wouldn't constantly run roughshod over what few fighters you had. I remember when the Nekotai came out and Shaddus' protégé Janalon helped out so much she had a guild position for irl years, and Shaddus went out of his way to help glom and the Nekotai with defenses, raids on Serenwilde, and more. In fact, he even went out of his way to finance the first ten pairs of nekai for the guild so they'd be able to jump right into the fray.
I remember being killed out of the blue on Faethorn by Glomdoring, and their mailing me 10k gold "for my trouble", and enemying me when I came to complain. I remember any friendly overture I've ever made to Glomdoring screwing me over in the long run, because Glomdoring got what it needed, screw everyone else.
This predated monks or Bards. I only played at release in Mag and Glom but quit way before Bards or Monks got released.
I have no idea how to implement it, but rotating winners on a single side of an alliance....or just one side winning over and over...really won't help at the end of the day.
Maybe Divine intervention needed? I could see a situation where you slowly lose points depending on Org majority in events.
Wildnodes for EX:
3 mags 3 celest 3 faethorn.
Celest dies, Mags can't earn points unless faethorn loses 1 player. Faethorn wishes to be present because - daily credits -, and dailycredits are only awarded at the end for participation.....just a suggestion.
This means you dont have to kill everyone in a faction to gain points...but you can't sit by when another faction is present either. You win, then you have to gain points by making certain your faction is the majority of the participants. Stepping out voluntarily, or doing nothing would forfeit your dailycredits.
EDIT: This is a - suggestion and an idea - I have no clue how to implement this properly.
I think the concept is there. Like you could have a rolling 1-2 month period of points. First goal would be a 1v1v1 where one org doesn't win over 50% or the events, and if they do the other two can ally. All only visible to the godmins that allow or forbid allying. Disfavors are rough, and people would think twice about going against the godmin if they are given out. We can all keep logs for the godmins that would reduce the workload on making sure people don't cheat the system.
This is just a rough idea. The godmins could create story line around the alliance shifts.
Hmm, I could see that, the point system could be arranged that alliances are only possible if one org takes a majority. And maybe also losing points if your org keeps a majority for a long period of time. Although, I'd be opposed to making disfavours be the penalty over just a mechanical reason why you can't have alliances in events except in X condition. Rather not pit players against the godmins.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I think the concept is there. Like you could have a rolling 1-2 month period of points. First goal would be a 1v1v1 where one org doesn't win over 50% or the events, and if they do the other two can ally. All only visible to the godmins that allow or forbid allying. Disfavors are rough, and people would think twice about going against the godmin if they are given out. We can all keep logs for the godmins that would reduce the workload on making sure people don't cheat the system.
This is just a rough idea. The godmins could create story line around the alliance shifts.
I kind of disagree with the Disfavour \ Pre-programmed alliance stuff.
People should still be allowed to have choice when it comes to allying with who they wish with. Removing that is kind of like saying, you aren't trusted to make your own decisions. That feels like a step in the - wrong - direction.
I'd rather work with an incentive\penalty system that fluctuates depending on events and so on.
You could also have an economy bonus\penalty during trade alliances with a set duration onto them ?
Like charging more for the enemy org purchasing supplies, but still letting them have access to the supplies themselves vs the trade agreement org having reduced costs across the board in shops, credits on sale and so on.
Trade agreements could have a duration, like one year. Then need to have a roundtable between the different cities to be re-enacted.
Event wise, I'll expand a bit on my previous idea,
Majority vs Minority setup:
Travel: -Open portals in each city that newbies can enter to participate in the events? -Quick returns to combat if you die witouth needing to have someone taxi you to astral?
Win condition: -You need majority to earn points ( 3 Mags vs 2 Faethorn vs 2 Celest) -You'd have to plan to fight both opposing orgs if you want to win, not just one.
Incentive ideas:
-You'll want to team up agaisnt the winning org instead of lashing out at the people that have already lost to try to win. -If you stop playing in it, you give up your daily credits for the event. -Nodes, Staff & etc could reset in random rooms after a while to prevent turtling down in an unbreakable fortress meld...or with 10 people? -Nodes can't be uprooted after being planted to promote dynamic combat. (Reset after a period of time) -Players in the event have Amalgamate + No exp Penalty for dying
Edit: Event-Only Powerups? Because.....Innon with mariokart? Edit2: This is starting to sound fun.
The reason why 1v1, only two orgs, would work better than a 2v2, four orgs, is simply because that's just not how people work. It's been said a few times by people, mostly from Glom, that all of Glom would migrate to the same place. A majority might, but not all. I'd probably give it a 60/10/30 split of migrate together/go elsewhere/quit the game. But Glom isn't as unified and hive-minded as it is being made out to be, which is a good thing and would severely worry me if it was. Sure, the core crux of people would stick together, but your lesser knowns and ignored (Yeah we hear about them, its why they leave Glom to join other places) will find somewhere else to go. That's not trying to insult, point flaws, or whatever else someone could try to victimize from, just a fact.
Also, when its only two total orgs, incentives can be placed to join the other side, the door actually opens for politics, because any old player knows darn well and good notable PKers roamed to the place with the best offer, especially when it came time to Ascension. Bringing it down to two total orgs also shrinks it to ten classes of seven archetypes only, making it much easier to manage and find a balance for. It fills out a few goals that the community, as a whole, has been asking for as well:
1) Make orgs feel more alive 2) More balanced classes (Less skillsets makes it easier to 'mirror') 3) No worries of one bad egg ruining an entire alliance 4) Population equilibrium
If you're curious why I put population equilibrium, simply put, people -will- roam to the other side if it means they can PK on a more regular basis, because I hope that I'm right in saying nobody enjoys the extremely one-sided slaughters. If you do, might be new to PK so the rush feels good, which I won't blame you for it does, but that gets old and victory becomes a stale thing. It also will lessen conflict between allies, because now you're just one big group. Not to mention, moving to the other side in this case would require you not to go out of your way to be a jerk, somewhat enforcing better behavior from players if they want to succeed.
I don't know how much I like a 2 org solution. It feels like we have even less of a choice (that if we don't like one org, then we would have to go to the other)
You are startled as a lemon meringue pie bounces harmlessly off you after being thrown at you by Mysrai.
I don't know how much I like a 2 org solution. It feels like we have even less of a choice (that if we don't like one org, then we would have to go to the other)
I'm kind of worried about what Coraline wrote here too. Would we really want to fall in a - Your with us or agaisnt us - kind of mold?
With a three vs a two org setup, you at least have the option to choose something else.
Also IC: Would anyone really trust a City to care for Nature?
Lusternia is a game about conflict. Every Org should literally be about their Org over all else. The lines are drawn in the lore. Alliances are literally for mutual benefit, but ultimately no alliance should work long term. Honestly, the orgs have been to cozy with one another too long. That is probably because we don't have the playerbase to have true identity in ever Org. I remember a time when Mag was Mag > all. I also remember Celest wanting to cull Mag beyond measure.
Let's not pretend like getting handed your "share" of wins isn't better than admin forced alliances. That is all I will say about that.
The lore is just the wallpaper and was pretty much just taken out the back and shot when they brought in the guild overhaul.
Alliances work because in games like this, people like people, not lore. So personal interaction > lore. This is reinforced by how much of this game is actually played outseide of the game
Hallifax/Glomdoring - Wealth of Isune/Viravain, Jadice/Manteekan, Collective/NMBG material and similarities to work with.
Both get destroyed, probably losing Isune/Viravain in some grand sacrificial attempt to save city/forest or they do a Ebonglom Wyrdling fusion. Jadice/Manteekan/Czixi lead survivors to misty mugwumpi wyrden/dark swamp refuge and new nexus raised. Mugwumpi dwellers keep a researchy focus, but strong spirit element remains.
Glom loses Druidry/Crow + major bleeding skills and Halli peeps lose Harmonics/Aeonics. Reskinning of Aeromancy into a mist/wyrden swamp theme. Maybe Jilai is killed, Crys goes mad in grief and Mahalla absorbs, changing Shadowbeat/Loralaria into reskinned blend of two. Keep one of Neko/Tessenchi.
Bonus: Hippos! Cimtri spirit lore that could be repurposed.
Celest/Gaudiguch - Light/Fire/Love org. Burning star returns, Grimbach/Dumaliel madness cured through transmology/Ein experimentation, but not before losing a Supernal or two and Pool of Stars being destroyed again and link with Water lost. Grimbach/Dumaliel become part of new Celestia that is reskinned to fiery archangels etc. Fire's ability to purify the Taint discovered. Army of Love formed.
Admittedly harder to think of basis for potential merging of Serenwilde/Magnagora, so maybe those are the two orgs that remain as they are...
Trust us, Kistan, we're aware lore means nothing to select people. The mental gymnastics people are willing to go through to justify why they're allied with who they are, as it goes entirely against what they are about as an org. But, saying that people don't like lore is a very poor statement. I implore you go review this thread, and every other thread that pertains to orgs, and you'll see the lore is brought up, a lot. You'll see people's attachment to the lore, the flavor of what the org is, etc.
So arguably 1v1 is worse that 2v2 for some of the aforementioned reasons, but also because you need to look beyond the numbers and at what that would actually mean.
Cities v Forests? Cool, so the light and the taint are going to cohabit?
Good v Evil? So the people who like nature focused rp are just going to be sidelined into another org?
In many ways a 2v2 is ultimately just the same as a 1v1 as far as conflict mechanisms go, but it falls apart when you look at what those orgs would actually be because you've upped the merging from 2 orgs to 3-4 where you're bound to find even more incompatibilities and more of a headache.
Also, not saying 2v2 is the solution, 1v1v1 even if two of the 1's group up still looks best.
1v1 just lets a change of theme happen too, heck could have all 7 archetypes in each of those orgs and have two versions of each. Drops effective classes to 14, they share core things, maybe secondaries change at best. Themes could be civilization versus nature, resistance versus soulless, good versus evil, order versus chaos, plenty of themes that have a duality factor, why limit?
It betrays so much of each org's identity, and it's a testament of Lusternia's misguided drift into the realm of "flashy and simple" at the expense of the depth and complexity that made Lusternia exceptional in the first place.
I mean, if you can't pair off everyone then it doesn't work. We know what 4 and 6 look like and they cause problems, hence the push to 3.
Your issues with Seren/Mag probably stem from stuff like... it'd likely leave Lisaera and Fain in the same pantheon, there's also the whole thing about Serenwilde protecting nature and what it'd mean to merge with the taint which... well Glomdoring. The argument mentioned for why Gaudi can't merge with Mag applies to Serenwilde as well, but that divide is even deeper between Serenwilde and Mag given Serenwilde wants to ensure the freedoms of nature/fae and the dead as well as its people.
Also like... it looks like you would have two evil looking foresty orgs.
Comments
The idea is that either alliances here would not be allowed(1v1), or that the sides would be adjusted in some way(the 2v2 idea for four orgs). The latter I doubt would work very well, but a lot of depends more on whether or not classes are balanced and which orgs remain.
That's actually the heart of the problem.
Status Quo is what causes the feelings of hurt from everyone - not - on Glomdoring's side right now.
You have a winning side, that rotates & a losing side that just gets more frustrated in 2 vs 2 & 3 vs 3
If you go 1 vs 1 .... you just end up with one side massively dominating the longer time goes on and the other city will just die off
So nothing changes, instead you'll just repalce the general hate of Glomdoring with a brand new name and the other city will die off
If this happens (Deletion of Orgs) this has to be fixed. You can't end up with a Winning side and a Losing side - only -.
There will be winners, there will be losers. But a third party has to have the ability to intervene and reverse the fight.
Ex:
Mags beats Celest in Wildnodes. Faethorn intervenes and kicks a wounded mag down, Celest comes back and fights faethorn instead, loses. Mag allies with celest and takes faethorn down then fights with each other.
Put penalties in place or a reason to force people --- Not --- to go for a 2 vs 1 alliance and you'll have a rotating winner every time.
Temporary alliances are fine, alliances that last over 2 years of real life time (Just speculating) are not.
Edit: This is absolutly 100% unrelated to any combat complaints. It refers to landslide domination that creates a stale gameplay environment.
so sorry, just a response to Innon's comment. I'm a - very - slow poster.
Let me fix that bubble a minute.
Edit: I can't seem to condence the post when saving the comment. I'm afraid it'll be a bit of a giant mess, but it should clarify what I meant ^-^
Maybe Divine intervention needed?
I could see a situation where you slowly lose points depending on Org majority in events.
Wildnodes for EX:
3 mags 3 celest 3 faethorn.
Celest dies, Mags can't earn points unless faethorn loses 1 player. Faethorn wishes to be present because - daily credits -, and dailycredits are only awarded at the end for participation.....just a suggestion.
This means you dont have to kill everyone in a faction to gain points...but you can't sit by when another faction is present either. You win, then you have to gain points by making certain your faction is the majority of the participants. Stepping out voluntarily, or doing nothing would forfeit your dailycredits.
EDIT: This is a - suggestion and an idea - I have no clue how to implement this properly.
This is just a rough idea. The godmins could create story line around the alliance shifts.
People should still be allowed to have choice when it comes to allying with who they wish with. Removing that is kind of like saying, you aren't trusted to make your own decisions. That feels like a step in the - wrong - direction.
I'd rather work with an incentive\penalty system that fluctuates depending on events and so on.
You could also have an economy bonus\penalty during trade alliances with a set duration onto them ?
Like charging more for the enemy org purchasing supplies, but still letting them have access to the supplies themselves vs the trade agreement org having reduced costs across the board in shops, credits on sale and so on.
Trade agreements could have a duration, like one year. Then need to have a roundtable between the different cities to be re-enacted.
Event wise, I'll expand a bit on my previous idea,
Majority vs Minority setup:
Travel:
-Open portals in each city that newbies can enter to participate in the events?
-Quick returns to combat if you die witouth needing to have someone taxi you
to astral?
Win condition:
-You need majority to earn points ( 3 Mags vs 2 Faethorn vs 2 Celest)
-You'd have to plan to fight both opposing orgs if you want to win, not just one.
Incentive ideas:
-You'll want to team up agaisnt the winning org instead of lashing out at the
people that have already lost to try to win.
-If you stop playing in it, you give up your daily credits for the event.
-Nodes, Staff & etc could reset in random rooms after a while to prevent turtling
down in an unbreakable fortress meld...or with 10 people?
-Nodes can't be uprooted after being planted to promote dynamic combat. (Reset after a period of time)
-Players in the event have Amalgamate + No exp Penalty for dying
Edit: Event-Only Powerups? Because.....Innon with mariokart?
Edit2: This is starting to sound fun.
Also, when its only two total orgs, incentives can be placed to join the other side, the door actually opens for politics, because any old player knows darn well and good notable PKers roamed to the place with the best offer, especially when it came time to Ascension. Bringing it down to two total orgs also shrinks it to ten classes of seven archetypes only, making it much easier to manage and find a balance for. It fills out a few goals that the community, as a whole, has been asking for as well:
1) Make orgs feel more alive
2) More balanced classes (Less skillsets makes it easier to 'mirror')
3) No worries of one bad egg ruining an entire alliance
4) Population equilibrium
If you're curious why I put population equilibrium, simply put, people -will- roam to the other side if it means they can PK on a more regular basis, because I hope that I'm right in saying nobody enjoys the extremely one-sided slaughters. If you do, might be new to PK so the rush feels good, which I won't blame you for it does, but that gets old and victory becomes a stale thing. It also will lessen conflict between allies, because now you're just one big group. Not to mention, moving to the other side in this case would require you not to go out of your way to be a jerk, somewhat enforcing better behavior from players if they want to succeed.
Would we really want to fall in a - Your with us or agaisnt us - kind of mold?
With a three vs a two org setup, you at least have the option to choose something else.
Also IC: Would anyone really trust a City to care for Nature?
Let's not pretend like getting handed your "share" of wins isn't better than admin forced alliances. That is all I will say about that.
This can't go through with half measures.
Edit: I can't see the community surviving if this is implemented badly either.
Cities v Forests? Cool, so the light and the taint are going to cohabit?
Good v Evil? So the people who like nature focused rp are just going to be sidelined into another org?
In many ways a 2v2 is ultimately just the same as a 1v1 as far as conflict mechanisms go, but it falls apart when you look at what those orgs would actually be because you've upped the merging from 2 orgs to 3-4 where you're bound to find even more incompatibilities and more of a headache.
Also, not saying 2v2 is the solution, 1v1v1 even if two of the 1's group up still looks best.
It betrays so much of each org's identity, and it's a testament of Lusternia's misguided drift into the realm of "flashy and simple" at the expense of the depth and complexity that made Lusternia exceptional in the first place.
Accountability is necessary.
I mean, if you can't pair off everyone then it doesn't work. We know what 4 and 6 look like and they cause problems, hence the push to 3.
Your issues with Seren/Mag probably stem from stuff like... it'd likely leave Lisaera and Fain in the same pantheon, there's also the whole thing about Serenwilde protecting nature and what it'd mean to merge with the taint which... well Glomdoring. The argument mentioned for why Gaudi can't merge with Mag applies to Serenwilde as well, but that divide is even deeper between Serenwilde and Mag given Serenwilde wants to ensure the freedoms of nature/fae and the dead as well as its people.
Also like... it looks like you would have two evil looking foresty orgs.