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?
You're just throwing out dichotomies here and not discussing the reality of the orgs that those represent
Civilisation VS nature - Do you mean that you're going to have the Light and the Taint in the same org, i.e players who want to be "good" aligned will have to work with "evil" aligned ones? Resistance VS soulless | Good vs evil | order vs chaos - These are all basically the same, so where do players interested in nature themes go here? Probably another game.
You can also pump out Horde vs Alliance, that doesn't mean that it will work for Lusternia and a solution that works for Lusternia is what matters.
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.
Adding to this
and you're playing a character of Serenwilde as such, until one day, suddenly, "you're doing it all wrong!! Serenwilde is actually dark and edgy"
You are startled as a lemon meringue pie bounces harmlessly off you after being thrown at you by Mysrai.
Serenwilde is not just dark and edgy, it is all sorts of things. It is just not all snuggles, licking, and happy times. The issue in Serenwilde is the latter group try and say that is what Serenwilde is supposed to be, because of the Blurb you just posted, and they have never actually read the Histories. The former group are like "no, Serenwilde is both." The Latter group is also pretty blatant about snuggling, licking, romping, pouncing anyone they see anywhere they see them. The former group is not allowed to murder them for it
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?
You're just throwing out dichotomies here and not discussing the reality of the orgs that those represent
Civilisation VS nature - Do you mean that you're going to have the Light and the Taint in the same org, i.e players who want to be "good" aligned will have to work with "evil" aligned ones? Resistance VS soulless | Good vs evil | order vs chaos - These are all basically the same, so where do players interested in nature themes go here? Probably another game.
You can also pump out Horde vs Alliance, that doesn't mean that it will work for Lusternia and a solution that works for Lusternia is what matters.
At the mentioning of all 7 archetypes per side, hints that Nature themes are apart of it. We already have the 'good' and 'evil' forests, etc. Also, in the case of civilization versus nature it becomes a story telling arc. The Basin can be torn apart with tatters remaining, each 'side' adopting a nexus and whatever planar connections, maybe mages get merged into just a straight up Magi, all 4 elements fused together once more (look at Klaymech, it's happened before in the lore) and that's how they meld. Nature side would have druids to counter, civi would have some kind of guardians, and nature having the wiccans. There is always a way to make it work, thematically and story-telling wise. If it because just themes of dichotomies then you can make each side have access to all 7 like I said and just have a themed version of each. Not a hard concept I would hope.
It 100% is, I think we talked about this on Discord
It doesn't help that because there is nothing Dark and Edgy can do to the Licker without facing punishment from the Commune it leads to one of two things.
1: Dark Edgy leaves to new org where that does not happen, causing org to fall into a state of never succeeding 2: Dark Edgy tolerates it, but bitches on discord about it causing hard feelings between players
Both results end up with Licker thinking it is acceptable behaviour and encouraging more Lickers to act that way
Yeah, I remember. Just thought I'd put it out here too, since someone brought up the point of misleading blurbs.
Edit: Clarifying that I didn't post that for a "gotcha!" moment or whatever. Just pointing out that when people are choosing the org in character creation, they see this, and so unless you've played before, it's more likely that someone who is looking for a "peaceful" or, as some people might call it, "snuggly" place is going to choose the org.
And, maybe I don't remember this or missed it, but I don't remember an instance in Serenwilde where, when someone behaved inappropriately to somebody else and they complained about it, the Commune decided to punish the complainer instead of the perpetrator.
(That went a bit off topic, sorry. But main point: the blurbs are misleading!)
You are startled as a lemon meringue pie bounces harmlessly off you after being thrown at you by Mysrai.
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?
You're just throwing out dichotomies here and not discussing the reality of the orgs that those represent
Civilisation VS nature - Do you mean that you're going to have the Light and the Taint in the same org, i.e players who want to be "good" aligned will have to work with "evil" aligned ones? Resistance VS soulless | Good vs evil | order vs chaos - These are all basically the same, so where do players interested in nature themes go here? Probably another game.
You can also pump out Horde vs Alliance, that doesn't mean that it will work for Lusternia and a solution that works for Lusternia is what matters.
At the mentioning of all 7 archetypes per side, hints that Nature themes are apart of it. We already have the 'good' and 'evil' forests, etc. Also, in the case of civilization versus nature it becomes a story telling arc. The Basin can be torn apart with tatters remaining, each 'side' adopting a nexus and whatever planar connections, maybe mages get merged into just a straight up Magi, all 4 elements fused together once more (look at Klaymech, it's happened before in the lore) and that's how they meld. Nature side would have druids to counter, civi would have some kind of guardians, and nature having the wiccans. There is always a way to make it work, thematically and story-telling wise. If it because just themes of dichotomies then you can make each side have access to all 7 like I said and just have a themed version of each. Not a hard concept I would hope.
You're being super generic about what you're talking about to the point that it's impossible for others to meaningfully engage with whatever you're actually suggesting.
For example, if you're saying all 7 archetypes per side and then talking about nature vs civilisation then it makes no sense in the context of lusternia (ie the one that matters). Because the reality is that four of the archetypes are ultimately just nature-specific and civilisation-specific variations of each other (to the point the final archetype is known as the sixth not eighth), so it doesn't make sense for "civilisation" to have nature archetypes.
If you think there's a way to make it work, then actually make a suggestion of what that would actually look like. Tell us where people who like concepts from each of the existing orgs would end up.
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?
You're just throwing out dichotomies here and not discussing the reality of the orgs that those represent
Civilisation VS nature - Do you mean that you're going to have the Light and the Taint in the same org, i.e players who want to be "good" aligned will have to work with "evil" aligned ones? Resistance VS soulless | Good vs evil | order vs chaos - These are all basically the same, so where do players interested in nature themes go here? Probably another game.
You can also pump out Horde vs Alliance, that doesn't mean that it will work for Lusternia and a solution that works for Lusternia is what matters.
At the mentioning of all 7 archetypes per side, hints that Nature themes are apart of it. We already have the 'good' and 'evil' forests, etc. Also, in the case of civilization versus nature it becomes a story telling arc. The Basin can be torn apart with tatters remaining, each 'side' adopting a nexus and whatever planar connections, maybe mages get merged into just a straight up Magi, all 4 elements fused together once more (look at Klaymech, it's happened before in the lore) and that's how they meld. Nature side would have druids to counter, civi would have some kind of guardians, and nature having the wiccans. There is always a way to make it work, thematically and story-telling wise. If it because just themes of dichotomies then you can make each side have access to all 7 like I said and just have a themed version of each. Not a hard concept I would hope.
You're being super generic about what you're talking about to the point that it's impossible for others to meaningfully engage with whatever you're actually suggesting.
For example, if you're saying all 7 archetypes per side and then talking about nature vs civilisation then it makes no sense in the context of lusternia (ie the one that matters). Because the reality is that four of the archetypes are ultimately just nature-specific and civilisation-specific variations of each other (to the point the final archetype is known as the sixth not eighth), so it doesn't make sense for "civilisation" to have nature archetypes.
If you think there's a way to make it work, then actually make a suggestion of what that would actually look like. Tell us where people who like concepts from each of the existing orgs would end up.
Bolded the part that explains your confusion for you. I said if it was civilization versus nature, you'd have mages v druids, guardians v wiccan. I made a special case example specifically for that, where the others that are just opposites could have access to all 7. It makes sense when you read it, I promise.
Edit: Clarifying that I didn't post that for a "gotcha!" moment or whatever. Just pointing out that when people are choosing the org in character creation, they see this, and so unless you've played before, it's more likely that someone who is looking for a "peaceful" or, as some people might call it, "snuggly" place is going to choose the org. and you're playing a character of Serenwilde as such, until one day, suddenly, "you're doing it all wrong!! Serenwilde is actually dark and edgy"
Eh... maybe it's just me, but I don't read 'magical place of fae and elfen' and think 'pouncing on and licking people randomly.' It's pretty vague, so I'm skeptical that the reason snugglers tend to congregate there - and have for a while - is solely due to that description. In books I've read, both elves and fairies can be quite hardcore and even sinister, in the case of the latter.
But I do hate that Magnagora is called the 'city of evil.' City of Strength/Domination/Taint? I realize most truebies aren't going to know what Taint means, but evil is subjective and inaccurate. Every org has done things that could be considered evil, and thematically, Glomdoring's ideology and practices are no less "evil" than Magnagora's.
"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."
But I do hate that Magnagora is called the 'city of evil.' City of Strength/Domination/Taint? I realize most truebies aren't going to know what Taint means, but evil is subjective and inaccurate. Every org has done things that could be considered evil, and thematically, Glomdoring's ideology and practices are no less "evil" than Magnagora's.
Edit: Clarifying that I didn't post that for a "gotcha!" moment or whatever. Just pointing out that when people are choosing the org in character creation, they see this, and so unless you've played before, it's more likely that someone who is looking for a "peaceful" or, as some people might call it, "snuggly" place is going to choose the org. and you're playing a character of Serenwilde as such, until one day, suddenly, "you're doing it all wrong!! Serenwilde is actually dark and edgy"
Eh... maybe it's just me, but I don't read 'magical place of fae and elfen' and think 'pouncing on and licking people randomly.' It's pretty vague, so I'm skeptical that the reason snugglers tend to congregate there - and have for a while - is solely due to that description. In books I've read, both elves and fairies can be quite hardcore and even sinister, in the case of the latter.
But I do hate that Magnagora is called the 'city of evil.' City of Strength/Domination/Taint? I realize most truebies aren't going to know what Taint means, but evil is subjective and inaccurate. Every org has done things that could be considered evil, and thematically, Glomdoring's ideology and practices are no less "evil" than Magnagora's.
Glom's blurb is pretty sinister and dark sounding, and by contrast, Seren's had a "Disney Forest" kind of sound (by contrast, and by the description given).
I actually had a nice time there when I started out. Nobody was inappropriate that I remember.
You are startled as a lemon meringue pie bounces harmlessly off you after being thrown at you by Mysrai.
Edit: Clarifying that I didn't post that for a "gotcha!" moment or whatever. Just pointing out that when people are choosing the org in character creation, they see this, and so unless you've played before, it's more likely that someone who is looking for a "peaceful" or, as some people might call it, "snuggly" place is going to choose the org. and you're playing a character of Serenwilde as such, until one day, suddenly, "you're doing it all wrong!! Serenwilde is actually dark and edgy"
Eh... maybe it's just me, but I don't read 'magical place of fae and elfen' and think 'pouncing on and licking people randomly.' It's pretty vague, so I'm skeptical that the reason snugglers tend to congregate there - and have for a while - is solely due to that description. In books I've read, both elves and fairies can be quite hardcore and even sinister, in the case of the latter.
But I do hate that Magnagora is called the 'city of evil.' City of Strength/Domination/Taint? I realize most truebies aren't going to know what Taint means, but evil is subjective and inaccurate. Every org has done things that could be considered evil, and thematically, Glomdoring's ideology and practices are no less "evil" than Magnagora's.
Glom's blurb is pretty sinister and dark sounding, and by contrast, Seren's had a "Disney Forest" kind of sound (by contrast, and by the description given).
I actually had a nice time there when I started out. Nobody was inappropriate that I remember.
Ah, well, if it sounds Disney, I'd expect less licking...
I didn't leave Serenwilde because of the snugglers, I can say that much. It does at least seem to be worse than from what I remember.
"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."
Back in history, there was always the people that were just 'carefree' and roamed around 'skyclad' because "It's what Nature intended!" as the reason. It caught on and has just kind of stuck, though a good portion of it has disappeared. But regardless the game I go to, the org, the guild, whatever, I always run into their one person that follows that mindset. Anyway, lets move off that and get back to our preferences on the game going forward >.>
Edit: Clarifying that I didn't post that for a "gotcha!" moment or whatever. Just pointing out that when people are choosing the org in character creation, they see this, and so unless you've played before, it's more likely that someone who is looking for a "peaceful" or, as some people might call it, "snuggly" place is going to choose the org. and you're playing a character of Serenwilde as such, until one day, suddenly, "you're doing it all wrong!! Serenwilde is actually dark and edgy"
Eh... maybe it's just me, but I don't read 'magical place of fae and elfen' and think 'pouncing on and licking people randomly.' It's pretty vague, so I'm skeptical that the reason snugglers tend to congregate there - and have for a while - is solely due to that description. In books I've read, both elves and fairies can be quite hardcore and even sinister, in the case of the latter.
But I do hate that Magnagora is called the 'city of evil.' City of Strength/Domination/Taint? I realize most truebies aren't going to know what Taint means, but evil is subjective and inaccurate. Every org has done things that could be considered evil, and thematically, Glomdoring's ideology and practices are no less "evil" than Magnagora's.
Glom's blurb is pretty sinister and dark sounding, and by contrast, Seren's had a "Disney Forest" kind of sound (by contrast, and by the description given).
I actually had a nice time there when I started out. Nobody was inappropriate that I remember.
Ah, well, if it sounds Disney, I'd expect less licking...
I didn't leave Serenwilde because of the snugglers, I can say that much. It does at least seem to be worse than from what I remember.
I didn't leave because of the snugglers per se. There were more snugglers and, playing a character with a happy disposition, it was getting pretty hard to not get associated with the snugglers (even when you're the one telling them privately to tone it down or it will make them unpopular). Also it was a pretty hostile environment and felt like walking on eggshells all the time.
In Gaudi, meanwhile, I get rewarded for just being myelf and designing food in peace. Which is a reason I'll be sad if Gaudi goes dormant - I don't know of any other org where you can play a happy, carefree character and people won't look at you weird.
You are startled as a lemon meringue pie bounces harmlessly off you after being thrown at you by Mysrai.
In Gaudi, meanwhile, I get rewarded for just being myelf and designing food in peace. Which is a reason I'll be sad if Gaudi goes dormant - I don't know of any other org where you can play a happy, carefree character and people won't look at you weird.
I've never really gotten Gaudi's rp. Hallifax, though, I love playing up the superiority and respect/discipline of it(I like Magnagora for the same reason), along with being able to have roleplayed arguments about paperwork without actually taking it seriously. It's sad, because each of the orgs, played well, is actually very distinct and has something that appeals to different people- and yet, they're also complex enough that you could potentially have alliances between any two orgs. That's something I don't think any other IRE mud really offered, at least of my experiences playing other ones.
I don't like trying to say which ones can go, as there's things I'd miss no matter what. And really, I do still believe the class and artifact balance is a bigger problem anyway.
"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."
You can be pretty carefree and upbeat in a lot of the orgs, as long as you're not causing issues. Example in Mag right now is Alarin, super upbeat aslaran with unusual speech. He's not causing trouble or being disrespectful, so nobody takes issue. I think that's the balance that has to be struck.
I actually had a nice time there when I started out. Nobody was inappropriate that I remember.
You didn't see a lot.
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
@Saran I don't expect my scenarios to be followed and was more fun to just explore how mergers/nuking orgs might happen but fine...
Nuke Serenwilde/Magnagora stays: Fain returns, manages to imprison Lisaera. Hoaracle tries to bargain for release with location to key to Hyringex Collar. Fain betrays contract and kills both forming new power couple with Drocilla. Fully empowered Dro seduces Charune, undersway Charune kills Maylea but this breaks enchantment. Charune gores Dro and cuts off her tongue but has to flee from Morg. Dro loses song of creation ability and in rage destroys Serenwilde. Charune + Auseklis lead Seren survivors to dark, edgy swamp forest where they get over difference with Glom/Halli survivors and go full scale Cimtri/Earthburner spirits against remaining Mag + BurningStar cities.
People do not stay for the lore though, they stay for people.
Maybe i worded it badly.
The lore is the wallpaper. our actions are our own.
Most talk of lore seems to be lamenting it is not what it was. The talk of it not being what it was probably started in day 2 of the game.
Wanted to point out that the bolded statement is not entirely true, which is partly why I would most likely bid adieu if the lore I've grown attached to is forced to fade into history. I enjoy some of the people I interact and work with here, but people are not the reason why I've stuck around for twelve years.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops And endless starless night Singing how the wind was lost Before an earthly flight
At the mentioning of all 7 archetypes per side, hints that Nature themes are apart of it. We already have the 'good' and 'evil' forests, etc. Also, in the case of civilization versus nature it becomes a story telling arc. The Basin can be torn apart with tatters remaining, each 'side' adopting a nexus and whatever planar connections, maybe mages get merged into just a straight up Magi, all 4 elements fused together once more (look at Klaymech, it's happened before in the lore) and that's how they meld. Nature side would have druids to counter, civi would have some kind of guardians, and nature having the wiccans. There is always a way to make it work, thematically and story-telling wise. If it because just themes of dichotomies then you can make each side have access to all 7 like I said and just have a themed version of each. Not a hard concept I would hope.
You're being super generic about what you're talking about to the point that it's impossible for others to meaningfully engage with whatever you're actually suggesting.
For example, if you're saying all 7 archetypes per side and then talking about nature vs civilisation then it makes no sense in the context of lusternia (ie the one that matters). Because the reality is that four of the archetypes are ultimately just nature-specific and civilisation-specific variations of each other (to the point the final archetype is known as the sixth not eighth), so it doesn't make sense for "civilisation" to have nature archetypes.
If you think there's a way to make it work, then actually make a suggestion of what that would actually look like. Tell us where people who like concepts from each of the existing orgs would end up.
Bolded the part that explains your confusion for you. I said if it was civilization versus nature, you'd have mages v druids, guardians v wiccan. I made a special case example specifically for that, where the others that are just opposites could have access to all 7. It makes sense when you read it, I promise.
Nope, you're not reading my post and continuing to be too generic.
I guess I'll respond with generalisms.
Right now we have some people who like to be:
Nature
Good
Evil
Emo(?)
ChAoS!1
Science!
If you're merging the orgs directly then Civilisation is Good and Evil and ChAoS!1 and Science!. Nature can work something out with the orgs flowing into it but Civilisation is literally taking two pairings of diametric opposites and jamming those people into a new org.
Also, the fusion of all four elements already exists afaik, it's called Nature.
@Saran I don't expect my scenarios to be followed and was more fun to just explore how mergers/nuking orgs might happen but fine...
Nuke Serenwilde/Magnagora stays: Fain returns, manages to imprison Lisaera. Hoaracle tries to bargain for release with location to key to Hyringex Collar. Fain betrays contract and kills both forming new power couple with Drocilla. Fully empowered Dro seduces Charune, undersway Charune kills Maylea but this breaks enchantment. Charune gores Dro and cuts off her tongue but has to flee from Morg. Dro loses song of creation ability and in rage destroys Serenwilde. Charune + Auseklis lead Seren survivors to dark, edgy swamp forest where they get over difference with Glom/Halli survivors and go full scale Cimtri/Earthburner spirits against remaining Mag + BurningStar cities.
I mean, aside from being a great example of not even surface understanding of the org you're talking about, why would the resultant org need Hallifax? You've basically merged together with two orgs where one of them definitely thinks everything about you (all cities really) is anathema and the other maybe less so.
Perhaps we should start having some fun coming up with ways to nuke hallifax in the most lore destroying ways possible.
Point is that change happens. Whatever decision is made, storytelling arcs that get orgs to pair whatever way the admin team think will lead to best future for the game are possible. Fully confident that if admin team decide to proceed, they will have a story arc that they put a lot more time and thought in than the minute I did this morning.
As for suggesting nuking Hallifax ideas - go for it. I'd like to think about how Ushaara would react to whatever you come up with!
As for suggesting nuking Hallifax ideas - go for it. I'd like to think about how Ushaara would react to whatever you come up with!
There's been talk of figuring out how to move Hallifax and crashing it into the sea of Despair. The resulting tsunami takes out all of Magnagora, Glomdoring, and Celest, and I figure Serenwilde turns into a wetlands area. Plot twist: Gaudiguch becomes the last refuge in the Basin.
If it does go, my vote is in favor of crashing it somewhere and taking out at least one other org in the process.
"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."
As for suggesting nuking Hallifax ideas - go for it. I'd like to think about how Ushaara would react to whatever you come up with!
There's been talk of figuring out how to move Hallifax and crashing it into the sea of Despair. The resulting tsunami takes out all of Magnagora, Glomdoring, and Celest, and I figure Serenwilde turns into a wetlands area. Plot twist: Gaudiguch becomes the last refuge in the Basin.
If it does go, my vote is in favor of crashing it somewhere and taking out at least one other org in the process.
Okay let's crash it on top of Gaudiguch ^-^
It would make for some Hot & Explosive Roleplaying.
So far, I think most or all of the suggestions here assume that reducing the number of player factions means either that 'x faction will cease to exist as it does now,' or that 'x and y factions will merge (with both identities being somewhat lost in the compromise.'
These ideas are unsurprisingly distasteful; There is plenty of overlap between 'I want the game to thrive' and 'I don't want my character's history, motivations and investments to be destroyed or invalidated.'
The stated reasoning for this exploration is 'the player population doesn't really support six orgs.' I don't disagree, but I think there are several sub statements here that might be worth breaking down.
For example: 1. There are so many city/commune positions and so few players that positions are vacant or occupied by inactive players. At least, nearly everyone in the city has a position in the city, which is weird.
2. Community is hard to come by if your org happens to be smaller, or less active during your time zone. If you've ever been the only person in your org online for hours on end, you know what I'm talking about.
3. Population doesn't just 'come and go' in an org. It varies, but it's undoubtedly true that activity breeds activity, and inactivity takes luck or a lot of hard work (or both) to reach a critical mass where it can build momentum.
4. There are (at least in the ranges that are possible given game population) ZERO downsides to population all being in one place, only advantages. Population is a straight 'winners win' or Positive Feedback Loop. This creates its own form of stagnation where one side can say 'I don't know what's wrong with you, we're fine' while the other sides can't build momentum because there is zero reason to play the underdog and always lose.
To me, that means the best solution to the overall problem is something that: 1. Gives an opportunity for smaller groups to bind with other groups, increasing their effective size both in terms of conflict and community.
2. Doesn't destroy or inhibit the cool histories of the world, the efforts of the players and characters, or end up feeling arbitrary by whomever is 'targeted' by the reduction/merger/etc
Thus my proposal: Make Alliances Actual Things (MAAT)
Definition - Alliance: a. An Alliance is a formal organizational entity that can be created by assent of two or more city/commune officials with delegated authority to do so, and dissolved by a similar authority, subject to the limitations in (e) below.
b. Alliances have their own ALLIANCE TELLS, ALLIANCE WHO etc. as well as positions* and powers*.
c. Alliances are the defacto organization when it comes to ownership or control of game areas, resources, and conflict zones (i.e. Rockholm would no longer be controlled by 'The Free Collective of Glomdoring' but rather the 'Insert Name Here Alliance' that Glomdoring is a part of. If they are NOT a part of an Alliance, then the city/commune can instead be the owner. A city or commune in an Alliance cannot be 'sole' owner of a resource.
d. If a resource (or resource stream) is owned by an Alliance, the material benefits are distributed unevenly among the Alliance member orgs. Imagine math such that for Alliance A organization 1 (A1) in an Alliance with 2 other orgs (A2, A3) and Resource 1 (R1), the share of resources for A1 = Resources(R1) / Number(Alliance Members) * variance between A1 active population and game wide 'average' population, with diminishing returns for very large orgs (where large is defined as a variance between active pop vs average active pop, using existing mechanisms for measuring activity)(and maybe accelerating gains for smaller orgs?). The goal of the math would be to put a finger on the scale of the otherwise unfettered positive feedback loop of population - and, if nothing else, you could design it so that orgs in Alliances with very large orgs suffer a bit for the larger orgs population (proportional share already does that a bit), which could help provide incentive for Alliance changes.
e. Alliances, once declared, are not active for x time units. Alliances, if DISSOLVE AMICABLY, are not dissolved for x time units, and cannot be reinstated for y time units. Alliances, if DISSOLVE FORCIBLY, are dissolved immediately, but cannot be reinstated for 10 * x time units. I would have some of these things post automatically to boards, because political movement and intrigue and reaction are interesting.
f. *: Alliance positions and powers can 'fill in' for missing city/commune resources, or could entirely replace them, or could be supersets of them. For example, you could have an Alliance 'Council of Security' which is automatically comprised of the Ministers of Security of all member states. The goal is not to have 'more roles to fill' but to allow fewer people to be empowered to do more. You could consider moving some powers and roles entirely to Alliances, but I would warn against forcing an org to be in an Alliance - You want to leave the possibility that a large, strong org decides to go Evil Empire (AKA Magnagora at launch, for the most part) and go-it-alone, and not share benefits. I would make it so an org doing this would NOT face the diminishing returns on resources they would face in an Alliance.
g. A member of an Alliance can, for example, use their city or commune granted influence powers in a contest for a village, but the relevant organization is the Alliance not the city/commune. This increases the number of people who are 'actually' involved in these conflicts, rather than being 'Ok, who has more people, ok Seren you take it, I will just fruitlessly chase Xenthos around trying to debate him and never getting anywhere.'
h. Alliances cost a ton of gold to create, plus an annual fee, and none of that money goes to Alliance coffers and none of it is refunded when the Alliance is dissolved.
i. Resources owned by an Alliance which is dissolved will become 'free' either at the end of time units (if DISSOLVE AMICABLY) +/- some randomization factor, or become unowned for 2 * x time units then become free +/- some randomization factor (if DISSOLVE FORCIBLY)
The goal of the system would be to create orgs that are supersets of existing orgs, so you have some consolidation of people without loss of history and identity.
A system like this also avoids concerns about 'the long term' since these Alliances would be under player control, and ephemeral (lower case e).
This simplifies and makes some conflict systems (villages in particular) more interesting and inclusive, while also distributing the gains in a way that encourages underdog participation and 'taxes' larger orgs slightly.
I don't know what to do with Domoths in relation to this - maybe you just say that Alliances are irrelevant on those aetherspheres or something. Someone else can decide this. You can't just treat domoths like villages, because in a 3v3 situation there's zero opposition. Maybe domoths are 'outside the reach' of Alliances and whatever rules bind them, and are 'FFA' in that sense, left exactly how they are.
There's obviously some development cost to this, but the burden is primarily coding not content. Your players will make drama and decisions based on how their orgs interact, you don't have to design rooms or ethos or guild names or anything. I'm guessing the hardest part would be convincing the villages to give out resources to Alliances.
This doesn't reduce the number of classes for balancing. I am not partial to that idea, so I made no effort to consider it here.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. A way to consolidate without deleting, making a system interesting, making conflict inclusive, helping modify the feedback systems of population, plus a built in gold sink!
Comments
Civilisation VS nature - Do you mean that you're going to have the Light and the Taint in the same org, i.e players who want to be "good" aligned will have to work with "evil" aligned ones?
Resistance VS soulless | Good vs evil | order vs chaos - These are all basically the same, so where do players interested in nature themes go here? Probably another game.
You can also pump out Horde vs Alliance, that doesn't mean that it will work for Lusternia and a solution that works for Lusternia is what matters.
It doesn't help that because there is nothing Dark and Edgy can do to the Licker without facing punishment from the Commune it leads to one of two things.
1: Dark Edgy leaves to new org where that does not happen, causing org to fall into a state of never succeeding
2: Dark Edgy tolerates it, but bitches on discord about it causing hard feelings between players
Both results end up with Licker thinking it is acceptable behaviour and encouraging more Lickers to act that way
Edit: Clarifying that I didn't post that for a "gotcha!" moment or whatever. Just pointing out that when people are choosing the org in character creation, they see this, and so unless you've played before, it's more likely that someone who is looking for a "peaceful" or, as some people might call it, "snuggly" place is going to choose the org.
And, maybe I don't remember this or missed it, but I don't remember an instance in Serenwilde where, when someone behaved inappropriately to somebody else and they complained about it, the Commune decided to punish the complainer instead of the perpetrator.
(That went a bit off topic, sorry. But main point: the blurbs are misleading!)
For example, if you're saying all 7 archetypes per side and then talking about nature vs civilisation then it makes no sense in the context of lusternia (ie the one that matters). Because the reality is that four of the archetypes are ultimately just nature-specific and civilisation-specific variations of each other (to the point the final archetype is known as the sixth not eighth), so it doesn't make sense for "civilisation" to have nature archetypes.
If you think there's a way to make it work, then actually make a suggestion of what that would actually look like. Tell us where people who like concepts from each of the existing orgs would end up.
But I do hate that Magnagora is called the 'city of evil.' City of Strength/Domination/Taint? I realize most truebies aren't going to know what Taint means, but evil is subjective and inaccurate. Every org has done things that could be considered evil, and thematically, Glomdoring's ideology and practices are no less "evil" than Magnagora's.
I actually had a nice time there when I started out. Nobody was inappropriate that I remember.
I didn't leave Serenwilde because of the snugglers, I can say that much. It does at least seem to be worse than from what I remember.
In Gaudi, meanwhile, I get rewarded for just being myelf and designing food in peace. Which is a reason I'll be sad if Gaudi goes dormant - I don't know of any other org where you can play a happy, carefree character and people won't look at you weird.
I don't like trying to say which ones can go, as there's things I'd miss no matter what. And really, I do still believe the class and artifact balance is a bigger problem anyway.
Like, if you read the history of the Taint Wars, Bhodi seemed like a crazy old guy but was, in fact, crazy clever and more aware than he appeared.
Accountability is necessary.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops
And endless starless night
Singing how the wind was lost
Before an earthly flight
I guess I'll respond with generalisms.
Right now we have some people who like to be:
- Nature
- Good
- Evil
- Emo(?)
- ChAoS!1
- Science!
If you're merging the orgs directly then Civilisation is Good and Evil and ChAoS!1 and Science!.Nature can work something out with the orgs flowing into it but Civilisation is literally taking two pairings of diametric opposites and jamming those people into a new org.
Also, the fusion of all four elements already exists afaik, it's called Nature.
You've basically merged together with two orgs where one of them definitely thinks everything about you (all cities really) is anathema and the other maybe less so.
Perhaps we should start having some fun coming up with ways to nuke hallifax in the most lore destroying ways possible.
If it does go, my vote is in favor of crashing it somewhere and taking out at least one other org in the process.
It would make for some Hot & Explosive Roleplaying.
1. There are so many city/commune positions and so few players that positions are vacant or occupied by inactive players. At least, nearly everyone in the city has a position in the city, which is weird.
To me, that means the best solution to the overall problem is something that:
1. Gives an opportunity for smaller groups to bind with other groups, increasing their effective size both in terms of conflict and community.
a. An Alliance is a formal organizational entity that can be created by assent of two or more city/commune officials with delegated authority to do so, and dissolved by a similar authority, subject to the limitations in (e) below.
b. Alliances have their own ALLIANCE TELLS, ALLIANCE WHO etc. as well as positions* and powers*.
c. Alliances are the defacto organization when it comes to ownership or control of game areas, resources, and conflict zones (i.e. Rockholm would no longer be controlled by 'The Free Collective of Glomdoring' but rather the 'Insert Name Here Alliance' that Glomdoring is a part of. If they are NOT a part of an Alliance, then the city/commune can instead be the owner. A city or commune in an Alliance cannot be 'sole' owner of a resource.
d. If a resource (or resource stream) is owned by an Alliance, the material benefits are distributed unevenly among the Alliance member orgs. Imagine math such that for Alliance A organization 1 (A1) in an Alliance with 2 other orgs (A2, A3) and Resource 1 (R1), the share of resources for A1 = Resources(R1) / Number(Alliance Members) * variance between A1 active population and game wide 'average' population, with diminishing returns for very large orgs (where large is defined as a variance between active pop vs average active pop, using existing mechanisms for measuring activity)(and maybe accelerating gains for smaller orgs?). The goal of the math would be to put a finger on the scale of the otherwise unfettered positive feedback loop of population - and, if nothing else, you could design it so that orgs in Alliances with very large orgs suffer a bit for the larger orgs population (proportional share already does that a bit), which could help provide incentive for Alliance changes.
e. Alliances, once declared, are not active for x time units. Alliances, if DISSOLVE AMICABLY, are not dissolved for x time units, and cannot be reinstated for y time units. Alliances, if DISSOLVE FORCIBLY, are dissolved immediately, but cannot be reinstated for 10 * x time units. I would have some of these things post automatically to boards, because political movement and intrigue and reaction are interesting.
f. *: Alliance positions and powers can 'fill in' for missing city/commune resources, or could entirely replace them, or could be supersets of them. For example, you could have an Alliance 'Council of Security' which is automatically comprised of the Ministers of Security of all member states. The goal is not to have 'more roles to fill' but to allow fewer people to be empowered to do more. You could consider moving some powers and roles entirely to Alliances, but I would warn against forcing an org to be in an Alliance - You want to leave the possibility that a large, strong org decides to go Evil Empire (AKA Magnagora at launch, for the most part) and go-it-alone, and not share benefits. I would make it so an org doing this would NOT face the diminishing returns on resources they would face in an Alliance.
g. A member of an Alliance can, for example, use their city or commune granted influence powers in a contest for a village, but the relevant organization is the Alliance not the city/commune. This increases the number of people who are 'actually' involved in these conflicts, rather than being 'Ok, who has more people, ok Seren you take it, I will just fruitlessly chase Xenthos around trying to debate him and never getting anywhere.'
h. Alliances cost a ton of gold to create, plus an annual fee, and none of that money goes to Alliance coffers and none of it is refunded when the Alliance is dissolved.
i. Resources owned by an Alliance which is dissolved will become 'free' either at the end of time units (if DISSOLVE AMICABLY) +/- some randomization factor, or become unowned for 2 * x time units then become free +/- some randomization factor (if DISSOLVE FORCIBLY)
A system like this also avoids concerns about 'the long term' since these Alliances would be under player control, and ephemeral (lower case e).
This simplifies and makes some conflict systems (villages in particular) more interesting and inclusive, while also distributing the gains in a way that encourages underdog participation and 'taxes' larger orgs slightly.
I don't know what to do with Domoths in relation to this - maybe you just say that Alliances are irrelevant on those aetherspheres or something. Someone else can decide this. You can't just treat domoths like villages, because in a 3v3 situation there's zero opposition. Maybe domoths are 'outside the reach' of Alliances and whatever rules bind them, and are 'FFA' in that sense, left exactly how they are.
There's obviously some development cost to this, but the burden is primarily coding not content. Your players will make drama and decisions based on how their orgs interact, you don't have to design rooms or ethos or guild names or anything. I'm guessing the hardest part would be convincing the villages to give out resources to Alliances.
This doesn't reduce the number of classes for balancing. I am not partial to that idea, so I made no effort to consider it here.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. A way to consolidate without deleting, making a system interesting, making conflict inclusive, helping modify the feedback systems of population, plus a built in gold sink!