Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.
Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now.
If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
No you literally said you will let the remaining orgs make the players, who never expected having to move and thus followed admin encouraged conflict, jump through hoops when you blow up some orgs. Even when you see the already big OOC divide the -administration- caused reflected here on the forums.
So yes you might as well tell those that are in an org that is being blown up to quit Lusternia as Pysynne already said he will find -whatever- IC reason to keep certain people out. And he certainly isn’t the only one. So you as -paid admin- saying we will not force an event where everyone enters at equal footing and players can be made to jump hoops is indicative of admins once again punishing part of the player base for playing the game
Arguably... the original three solution means you should have at least your ally/allies as an option to move to. If you've managed to get even them so off side that, on top of the other two, they'd even block you from joining... might be some other issues there.
You mean the original solution where one side gets 2 orgs and other other 1 org to move to? I am sure all of Glomdoring and Gaudiguch joining Celest will be conductive to the game considering it keeps the current alliance lines people have been whining about for over a year. It is unrealistic to demand one half of the game to bear all the hardship of having their orgs destroyed while the other half gets to be assured they will get no downside whatsoever and can even further punish the other side.
Of course you guys all can rest assured those 3 orgs are the ones that remain because like several of us made the joke, once Estarra says something like this, it is how it will be and no argument made here or anywhere else will change his mind anyway.
More like: We have different ideas on how an org should be run, which will lead to conflict. So I wouldn't phrase it quite your way (it's not like I am saying the players themselves will just all stab each other on sight), but we have very different desires for the player-run org structure itself.
Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.
Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now.
If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
No you literally said you will let the remaining orgs make the players, who never expected having to move and thus followed admin encouraged conflict, jump through hoops when you blow up some orgs. Even when you see the already big OOC divide the -administration- caused reflected here on the forums.
So yes you might as well tell those that are in an org that is being blown up to quit Lusternia as Pysynne already said he will find -whatever- IC reason to keep certain people out. And he certainly isn’t the only one. So you as -paid admin- saying we will not force an event where everyone enters at equal footing and players can be made to jump hoops is indicative of admins once again punishing part of the player base for playing the game
If you're going to shift the goalposts from me infering that 'I'm throwing everyone to the wolves to go through unfun procedures' to 'jump through some hoops' then yeah, there probably will be a hoop or two needed to jump through.
It doesn't make any sense to force an org to allow anyone and everyone in without giving them some say in the matter. If they're being unreasonable and refusing someone at all costs without giving them a reasonable chance (reasonable being doable and nothing crazy) then I'm sure we'll step in and get it sorted, but allowing a free pass doesn't make sense from an RP standpoint.
Forcing an org to let in anyone has just as much as an impact on those players as making a player jump through ridiculous 'unfun' procedures would on them. We need a middle ground. The intent isn't to punish anyone.
Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.
Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now.
If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
No you literally said you will let the remaining orgs make the players, who never expected having to move and thus followed admin encouraged conflict, jump through hoops when you blow up some orgs. Even when you see the already big OOC divide the -administration- caused reflected here on the forums.
So yes you might as well tell those that are in an org that is being blown up to quit Lusternia as Pysynne already said he will find -whatever- IC reason to keep certain people out. And he certainly isn’t the only one. So you as -paid admin- saying we will not force an event where everyone enters at equal footing and players can be made to jump hoops is indicative of admins once again punishing part of the player base for playing the game
If you're going to shift the goalposts from me infering that 'I'm throwing everyone to the wolves to go through unfun procedures' to 'jump through some hoops' then yeah, there probably will be a hoop or two needed to jump through.
It doesn't make any sense to force an org to allow anyone and everyone in without giving them some say in the matter. If they're being unreasonable and refusing someone at all costs without giving them a reasonable chance (reasonable being doable and nothing crazy) then I'm sure we'll step in and get it sorted, but allowing a free pass doesn't make sense from an RP standpoint.
You can make an event where it makes perfect RP sense, you just don't want to.
Ok, there's a big difference between accusing people of harassment and saying that your character has done things in the game that might be questioned when trying to join a new Org.
Yes, Enadonella may be questioned more than someone less prominent, but I would expect the same if it situation was with Shaddus moving into Glomdoring after Magnagora's destruction.
Actions in game bear consequences. I wouldn't have it any other way. You need to decide if the consequences are acceptable or not. If you are not willing to deal with the consequences of your actions, then you need to not perform those actions.
So essentially you are saying everyone that was involved with pvp or even liked the wrong person in the forums and got noticed by opposing orgs should just accept the admins are throwing them to the wolves forcing them through horrible unfun procedures that can leave a game unplayable for them even though said admins are the cause of the game being in this state and if that means not being able to play anymore good riddance.
Thanks for this shining example of why Lusternia is in the state it is now.
If that's your takeaway, I think you misunderstood the point.
No you literally said you will let the remaining orgs make the players, who never expected having to move and thus followed admin encouraged conflict, jump through hoops when you blow up some orgs. Even when you see the already big OOC divide the -administration- caused reflected here on the forums.
So yes you might as well tell those that are in an org that is being blown up to quit Lusternia as Pysynne already said he will find -whatever- IC reason to keep certain people out. And he certainly isn’t the only one. So you as -paid admin- saying we will not force an event where everyone enters at equal footing and players can be made to jump hoops is indicative of admins once again punishing part of the player base for playing the game
Arguably... the original three solution means you should have at least your ally/allies as an option to move to. If you've managed to get even them so off side that, on top of the other two, they'd even block you from joining... might be some other issues there.
You mean the original solution where one side gets 2 orgs and other other 1 org to move to? I am sure all of Glomdoring and Gaudiguch joining Celest will be conductive to the game considering it keeps the current alliance lines people have been whining about for over a year. It is unrealistic to demand one half of the game to bear all the hardship of having their orgs destroyed while the other half gets to be assured they will get no downside whatsoever and can even further punish the other side.
Of course you guys all can rest assured those 3 orgs are the ones that remain because like several of us made the joke, once Estarra says something like this, it is how it will be and no argument made here or anywhere else will change his mind anyway.
I believe you missed the point.
If you can't even get into your allies org then there's something else going on there.
If it were Celest, Glom, and Mag then Seren would probably split somewhere between the three because people have different interests. But people that aren't welcome in Celest or Glom, you'd probably expect to end up in Mag if they wanted to stick around.
That doesn't make any sense.
We can make an RP event that forces everyone to take in whoever wants to join without any input on the players already there. Now those players are put off because they don't get a say on who is in their org and are forced to play with people. Now we're punishing them 'for playing the game' as you said.
That doesn't make any sense.
We can make an RP event that forces everyone to take in whoever wants to join without any input on the players already there. Now those players are put off because they don't get a say on who is in their org and are forced to play with people. Now we're punishing them 'for playing the game' as you said.
You are not giving the players of the destroyed orgs any choice either so why are the remaining orgs special little snowflakes that they are worth more than the other players. Let me guess, they are your friends on discord
Whoa, whoa. What the actual hell did my post get deleted for? You know, the one that said "No matter how bad a person is, they deserve a chance to try and fix their reputation and live where they want if their org got deleted"?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
That doesn't make any sense.
We can make an RP event that forces everyone to take in whoever wants to join without any input on the players already there. Now those players are put off because they don't get a say on who is in their org and are forced to play with people. Now we're punishing them 'for playing the game' as you said.
You are not giving the players of the destroyed orgs any choice either so why are the remaining orgs special little snowflakes that they are worth more than the other players. Let me guess, they are your friends on discord
We would be giving players of destroyed orgs a choice though. Several of them in fact.
That doesn't make any sense.
We can make an RP event that forces everyone to take in whoever wants to join without any input on the players already there. Now those players are put off because they don't get a say on who is in their org and are forced to play with people. Now we're punishing them 'for playing the game' as you said.
You are not giving the players of the destroyed orgs any choice either so why are the remaining orgs special little snowflakes that they are worth more than the other players. Let me guess, they are your friends on discord
We would be giving players of destroyed orgs a choice though. Several of them in fact.
So you are going to ask them hey can we destroy your org and if one says no you won't? No? Then you are not giving them the same choice as the remaining orgs. You are only giving them a choice in what punishment they should take while others get to keep doing whatever they were doing.
You're right, we should just punish everyone and not try to come to any sort of middle ground whatsoever.
Nobody said destroying orgs was going to be easy or a walk in the park. we said we'd do our best to ease the transition through a variety of options. Yes, people are going to be upset if their org is the one on the chopping block. No, we haven't decided which orgs those are, or even if we'll move forward with it. So yes, some people may feel 'punished' for playing the game because their org ends up gone if we decide to go through with it. Some people may feel 'punished' because we don't allow them to straight up say 'no' to someone. That's why I'm saying we need a middle ground, neither players in orgs that are destroyed, nor players in orgs that remain will get 100% free reign to decide what they do in the aftermath.
This should be on the players (whichever chosen ones get to keep their cities) to sit abck and think "There , but for the grace of god, go I" A mature attitude from coity leadership, some giving of the benefit of the doubt - I mean you can always kick them out if it doeds not work out.
But no amount of admin interference is going to fix it if the orgs and their respective leaderships don't just bite the bullet and , for a while at least if it happens, let bygones be bygones.
You're right, we should just punish everyone and not try to come to any sort of middle ground whatsoever.
Nobody said destroying orgs was going to be easy or a walk in the park. we said we'd do our best to ease the transition through a variety of options. Yes, people are going to be upset if their org is the one on the chopping block. No, we haven't decided which orgs those are, or even if we'll move forward with it. So yes, some people may feel 'punished' for playing the game because their org ends up gone if we decide to go through with it. Some people may feel 'punished' because we don't allow them to straight up say 'no' to someone. That's why I'm saying we need a middle ground, neither players in orgs that are destroyed, nor players in orgs that remain will get 100% free reign to decide what they do in the aftermath.
The big question is that worth the end result?
The punishment should be equal, especially since you guys allowed the divide in the playerbase to grow as it is. So yes the feeling of punishment for the person in the org remaining should be equal to the person being forced to move. Yes forcing someone to move and having to change their entire RP and playing style and losing friends who are not remaining cause you are destroying orgs can be considered equal (it is not it is more by the way) to forcing some people to allow people they don't like to enter their org without them having a say in it (hey if they misbehave they will be removed later anyway). And while that does mean the gods being around a bit more and rule by divine mandate for a few weeks before allowing new leadership it is the only way to do it without giving a big middle finger to everyone in the destroyed orgs. It is you guys that are set on this nuclear option, people have suggested better ways of merging over alliance lines where equal suffering is there but less severe and orgs are joined in a positive note instead of the negative note destroying orgs is.
And if you guys weren't even 100% sure about removing the number of player orgs then these topics should never have been made, as it has even deepened the rifts between players and made playing lusternia even less fun as every effort we put in the orgs mentioned for the chopping block feels as pointless.
They have said repeatedly that they are not set on this option...
I can agree that raising the topic has definitely made a lot of people very concerned (a number of people joined the forums just to express their doubts). The uncertainty is a pretty big deal.
Yeah, that's certainly a viable option and a good middle ground. I'm glad we can find some common ground there.
As for the topics, we wanted player input. It seems like if we don't seek out player input, we get complaints about not doing so and if we do, we get complaints about doing so. I don't know that it has deepened the rifts. I don't know if they can get deeper. I'll honestly say that I've seen several players make honest and earnest efforts to lessen the rifts and reach across the aisle, to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and try to work in good faith.
They have said repeatedly that they are not set on this option...
If this weren't Lusternia where things like this have been said over and over only to mean the opposite, I would have taken that seriously. But it is Lusternia and experience teaches us differently.
They have said repeatedly that they are not set on this option...
If this weren't Lusternia where things like this have been said over and over only to mean the opposite, I would have taken that seriously. But it is Lusternia and experience teaches us differently.
Sometimes, yes. Estarra has also sometimes been talked out of ideas, it is not a universal thing where they always go in (and even then they often do get changed). I do think it is better to approach this as a conceptual thing, but even then the uncertainty is hard.
OOC should have NO impact on your ability to move to ANY organisation.
Ideally, you're right. But it happens all the time, sometimes with good reason.
There really should never be an OOC reason to reject someone from your org. As long as the IC reasons are kosher they should get in for certain.
I think part of the problem though is that there are no rules or no policing on this atm. I know a certain person who retired recently who got rejected from joining Serenwilde, was given no IC reasons for it but was told OOCly that an indvidual didn't like them because they had an arguement in Discord.
So yea silly rejects for OOC reasons apparently do happen and its something that I think the admin should police and punish.
Deichtine said: . I know a certain person who retired recently who got rejected from joining Serenwilde, was given no IC reasons for it but was told OOCly that an indvidual didn't like them because they had an arguement in Discord.
That doesn't make any sense.
We can make an RP event that forces everyone to take in whoever wants to join without any input on the players already there. Now those players are put off because they don't get a say on who is in their org and are forced to play with people. Now we're punishing them 'for playing the game' as you said.
You can in a way. Although it'd probally be best to call it an org merger. Like for example everyones talking about Seren and Glom. Lets say in this example Seren is getting destroyed and deleted because its one of the smaller orgs and Gloms staying becaue its one of the larger active orgs.
So you could just destroy Seren and thats it. Leave all the Seren players in the wind and they have to go through the standard apply to a new org process to get into a new org. This is a bit jarring and its going to cause issues for the player base obviously. There will be Serens who are enemied to so many other orgs they struggle to find a new place. Your going to see these kinds of players fade away or retire into a new org. This isn't theory either, this is something we've seen in other IRE games. Have a look at the stats on Imperian when they deleted Staven.
Or there are other options. In this example Seren is getting deleted due to its issues and Gloms staying but instead of just a straight delete what you can do is have an event that rocks Glomdoring too. The event deletes Serenwilde and heavily damages Glomdoring in some bad way. Maybe it gets locked out of time for a bit as well but comes back. Everyone gets kicked out of Glom and Seren for a moment but then can quickly rejoin in the event process. You've now got two orgs merged with minimal fuss. Now you've merged two orgs into 1, gathered all the players togther and somewhat reset the playing field a bit to allow the newcomers and the older ones time to talk merge and adjust with elections and general activity.
You could go even further with the merger process as well if you wanted to shake things up. For example you could maybe pick which classes survive. Maybe for example Blacktalon don't
survive but heart druids do. Moon gets wrecked but Night survives etc.
Deichtine said: . I know a certain person who retired recently who got rejected from joining Serenwilde, was given no IC reasons for it but was told OOCly that an indvidual didn't like them because they had an arguement in Discord.
Who/when?
Not going to out alts here. Orael already warned against it.
You haven't named anyone so it wouldn't be outing an alt ??? until you brought up alts, had no idea alts were even involved, was assuming it would be a familiar name.
PM me then, or I'm calling bs on that. You can't throw out accusations like that and clam up.
I thought affinity went in because Fain had spy order members in every org?
Affinity went in because one org (not to be partisan here, but Glomdoring) had a Fainite in it. Said Fainite had the grace and common sense of a bag of rats and got busted, and all hell broke loose. Suddenly it was a big deal.
A lot of orgs before that had off-org order members in it. Before Estarra retconned Raezon, he used to have his order members everyone, including but not limited to a few high ranking Paladin leaders. But they kept their mouth shut and avoided certain statues, and it was ok.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Deichtine said: . I know a certain person who retired recently who got rejected from joining Serenwilde, was given no IC reasons for it but was told OOCly that an indvidual didn't like them because they had an arguement in Discord.
Who/when?
Not going to out alts here. Orael already warned against it.
Kinda like how a specific person in the Glom chat has often asked if they know who someone is an alt of before they let them into the commune, right?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
OOC should have NO impact on your ability to move to ANY organisation.
Ideally, you're right. But it happens all the time, sometimes with good reason.
There really should never be an OOC reason to reject someone from your org. As long as the IC reasons are kosher they should get in for certain.
[. . .]
So yea silly rejects for OOC reasons apparently do happen and its something that I think the admin should police and punish.
There are silly reasons, and those are silly, and shouldn't happen.
That's not what I talk about in my fuller post on the matter. I stand by my assertion that there are/were a very very small number of players who, regardless of what org they were in, were OOC menaces, trolls, and bullies who caused so much trouble on an OOC level that I would have no reservations about denying their character entry into an org. Because at this point, it's no longer about IC stuff or RP. It's about making sure a shitty player doesn't kill the game for everyone else.
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.
Comments
Of course you guys all can rest assured those 3 orgs are the ones that remain because like several of us made the joke, once Estarra says something like this, it is how it will be and no argument made here or anywhere else will change his mind anyway.
If you're going to shift the goalposts from me infering that 'I'm throwing everyone to the wolves to go through unfun procedures' to 'jump through some hoops' then yeah, there probably will be a hoop or two needed to jump through.
It doesn't make any sense to force an org to allow anyone and everyone in without giving them some say in the matter. If they're being unreasonable and refusing someone at all costs without giving them a reasonable chance (reasonable being doable and nothing crazy) then I'm sure we'll step in and get it sorted, but allowing a free pass doesn't make sense from an RP standpoint.
Forcing an org to let in anyone has just as much as an impact on those players as making a player jump through ridiculous 'unfun' procedures would on them. We need a middle ground. The intent isn't to punish anyone.
If you can't even get into your allies org then there's something else going on there.
If it were Celest, Glom, and Mag then Seren would probably split somewhere between the three because people have different interests. But people that aren't welcome in Celest or Glom, you'd probably expect to end up in Mag if they wanted to stick around.
Nobody said destroying orgs was going to be easy or a walk in the park. we said we'd do our best to ease the transition through a variety of options. Yes, people are going to be upset if their org is the one on the chopping block. No, we haven't decided which orgs those are, or even if we'll move forward with it. So yes, some people may feel 'punished' for playing the game because their org ends up gone if we decide to go through with it. Some people may feel 'punished' because we don't allow them to straight up say 'no' to someone. That's why I'm saying we need a middle ground, neither players in orgs that are destroyed, nor players in orgs that remain will get 100% free reign to decide what they do in the aftermath.
The big question is that worth the end result?
And if you guys weren't even 100% sure about removing the number of player orgs then these topics should never have been made, as it has even deepened the rifts between players and made playing lusternia even less fun as every effort we put in the orgs mentioned for the chopping block feels as pointless.
As for the topics, we wanted player input. It seems like if we don't seek out player input, we get complaints about not doing so and if we do, we get complaints about doing so. I don't know that it has deepened the rifts. I don't know if they can get deeper. I'll honestly say that I've seen several players make honest and earnest efforts to lessen the rifts and reach across the aisle, to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and try to work in good faith.
PM me then, or I'm calling bs on that. You can't throw out accusations like that and clam up.
Would give reasons for big RP changes and would allow mergers/deletions without one side winning and the other losing.
A lot of orgs before that had off-org order members in it. Before Estarra retconned Raezon, he used to have his order members everyone, including but not limited to a few high ranking Paladin leaders. But they kept their mouth shut and avoided certain statues, and it was ok.
Kinda like how a specific person in the Glom chat has often asked if they know who someone is an alt of before they let them into the commune, right?
B: See A.