I'm going to disagree with you here. Celest and Serenwilde have been wrapped up with each other for a long while, even going out of their way to tell Hallifax during a meeting that allying with one is like allying with the other, but allying with Glomdoring means allying with neither.
I wouldn't quite put it like that. The perspective from Celest is:
Celest: Wants everyone to stop bickering and get along. Is willing to be allies with anyone except Magnagora and Gaudiguch. Prefers Serenwilde to Glomdoring, if only because Serenwilde has less ambiguous demands and doesn't seem interested in Magnagora. Serenwilde: Hates Glomdoring, wants to recruit anyone they can get into an alliance to destroy Glomdoring. Has repeatedly informed Celest (and presumably Hallifax) that they will not ally with anyone who will not help them attack Glomdoring. Hallifax: Wants their allies not escalate tensions with Gaudiguch up to the point of constant Continuum/Vortex raiding. Otherwise just wants a reasonable number of noncontroversial allies. Glomdoring: Noone in Celest knows what Glomdoring wants or who they are talking to. But in the past, Glomdoring has been if not a bad ally, at least an annoying ally. There's a reputation (deserved or not) of Glomdoring following the letter of a treaty while ignoring the spirit. Gaudiguch: See, Hallifax, but replace "a reasonable number of noncontroversial allies" with "the minimum number of foreign entanglements required to chase off raiders" Magnagora: CELESTIA DELENDA EST with a side of "Counties with a G in their name are superior".
The problem with 'just standing alone' is that without some kind of agreement, there isn't anything to stop everyone else from grouping together and hedging you out of participating in... anything.
They would, yes. You can always participate anyways, just lose more often. Hopefully everyone else would keep clustering only at first but who knows. Still worth a shot. Can make amends and repartions later if it falls through.
Yeah, I don't see how they can actually prevent you from participating, you may die a lot, and not win, but they can't actually stop you from trying. And if you're not trying, you can't win.
"'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in." -Synkarin's Lament.
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited November 2015
I mean, I get and totally wish it were practical, but losing isn't cheap and I don't trust anyone to actually give their opposing org a fair shot without mechanics forcing them to.
Take last wildnodes for example. It was just Lothringen, myself, and Malarious and literally no one else versus at least 8 between Celest and Hallifax. We moved to engage Celest by themselves and Hallifax was on us in under 10 seconds and we were crushed. So while #goitalone sounds fun, it's actually only fun when alone is viable. There really is nothing fun about 3 people aeon spamming you into oblivion in a no contest fight, you just die, reset, and then die again. Locking people down with group spam is not all that hard in Lusternia, so fighting zergs can often be just watching your system's inevitable march towards death. If you can't counter that lockdown, going it alone doesn't bring new fun to the game.
If the other side is just going to zerg you to death while you refuse to respond with the same, it doesn't make it interesting for the guy going alone. Trying, when it's an exercise in futility (and we just have to be honest and say that sometimes it is), is not more enjoyable than calling for some friends and actually making a go of it.
It's also tough for those of us without essence mountains and raid deaths cost us several hours of play time grinding it back when we don't have that much time to play as is!
tl;dr-Dedicating yourself to a go it alone mentality is fun when your org can still be successful (like Glom during Glom vs the World days). It doesn't create new or fun conflict if you can't, people just crush you, and will crush you to the point of the engagement being futile.
Meh - I think it's fun to try against the odds even if we lose. Obviously going for a straight up head to head battle isn't going to get you anywhere so you have to be creative. The goal in nodes isn't to kill people, it's to steal nodes for instance. Winning when you rightfully shouldn't have are the best victories.
"'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in." -Synkarin's Lament.
2
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited November 2015
I don't mind against the odds. What I'm saying is if you make the decision to put yourself at a disadvantage, people will take advantage of you. If you win, even against the odds, they will just call more until you cannot. We've seen it a thousand times.
I'm not arguing that it couldn't be fun to fight against the odds even if you lose. I've done it, it's fun. I usually solo raided for that very reason. What I learned from those raids is that people will continue to call in friends from wherever they can until you can't actually win anymore. We just have to acknowledge that a large chunk of the playerbase isn't interested in the meat of PK, the actual actions and counter plays. They're just interested in the quickest means to an end.
Creativity only plays so much of a role against 4 forms of aeon and 7 people attacking you.
Hallifax did a 'we stand alone' thing at one point. How did that work out? (Actual question, I think I did a quitting spree around then, and came back to them being allied to people again.)
It didn't. The idea was that if one side dissolved their alliance and each org 'stood alone', the opposite alliance would do the same. This didn't happen, the alliance reformed.
4
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited November 2015
Oh right, the whole Morbo thing. Yeah, that was a total bust. Admirable, but an excellent example of what happens when this theory is put into practice. People would rather win or be competitive than be admirable losers who die a lot.
One big motivator for winning at any cost (and thus giant alliances) is the lack of 'Mario Kart mechanics'. When you win wild nodes, you get the satisfaction of winning plus power which you can use for future ascendants and more discretionary. Same for Domoths, Culture, Villages, Flares, and Ascension.
In mario kart the further you are behind, the faster you go. With the setup we have, people know that if they lose, its only going to get worse.
The only equalizing mechanic I can think of at the moment is giving Divine more power the further their organization is behind. They are furious that Their vision is being denied, and they take a greater interest in what is happening. Perhaps each nation can have a score of # of villages + cultural center + # of domothos + # of flares. If your org is in last place, your Patron can give everyone in that org a free 5 day TF, urging their people to do better. If they are in second to last place, a free 5 day HF, etc.
The supposed balance that I would like to see is: If you are doing well, you can raise individual ascendants with copious power. If you are doing poorly, you will have more Divine sponsored powers that affect the whole of the nation boosting everyone to give it a shot.
For Mister Zvoltz, Pejat has been terminated by the Replicant Dynodeon.
Ex: only the members of x organization can domoth and only one org can contest.
While a nice idea, how would we even do that? I'm struggling to come up with mechanics that could accomplish this that wouldn't simply be gameable so a partner org can lock out all the others from competing.
Ex: big divine event that reaffirms that all other orgs are wrong because y
Happy to, but you guys do rememeber how much complaining and accusations of interference and bias from players this involves right? No? Read this thread.
Ex: big divine event that reaffirms that all other orgs are wrong because y
Happy to, but you guys do rememeber how much complaining and accusations of interference and bias from players this involves right? No? Read this thread.
Like that one time that one divine was doing 90% of an org's events and that org was happy until they figured out who it was and threw a fit because "favoritism".
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.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Ex: big divine event that reaffirms that all other orgs are wrong because y
Happy to, but you guys do rememeber how much complaining and accusations of interference and bias from players this involves right? No? Read this thread.
Some of us don't actually mind divine interference. I don't, never have. I think divine involvement is not as hated it seems, mostly because people who are unhappy are always, always, always louder than people who are.
I think his point though is that you aren't going to get your end goal without mechanical or divine involvement. Leave the players to their own devices and the majority will gravitate to whatever is successful, as is natural. The few that would "go it alone," Shuyin, Syknarin, and myself among them, are the minority.
Ex: big divine event that reaffirms that all other orgs are wrong because y
Happy to, but you guys do rememeber how much complaining and accusations of interference and bias from players this involves right? No? Read this thread.
Hallifax is apparently opting to ditch Celenwilde to keep Glomdoring, who wants to go with Magnagora, who is with Gaudiguch. The only caveat is, apparently, Magnadoring keeps out of Halli-Gaudi business. Yet another year of 4v2 and all the complications it poses!
This is news to me. I definitely hope this isn't what's happening :P
Domoths - add a power or essence or limited resource x to contesting. Make it only worthwhile for enemies, not allies. Maybe have it require fae or angels or x. Or tie it to city relations or enemy status. Lots of options.
Divine event - doesn't necessarily even need gods. You can make the pool turn yellow and refuse to give out power if members openly consort with dirty forestals, or what if cririk came back as a zombie and disavowed hallifax because blah, or even just made events that ran stories demonstrating why x ally org is a bad place. It would be more interesting than yet another "need essence" event #1244566.
Anyway, mechanical or cultural barriers, not handouts. You're not going to get the 1v1v1v1v1 unless the divine and mechanics help out because we all take the path of least resistance.
One big motivator for winning at any cost (and thus giant alliances) is the lack of 'Mario Kart mechanics'. When you win wild nodes, you get the satisfaction of winning plus power which you can use for future ascendants and more discretionary. Same for Domoths, Culture, Villages, Flares, and Ascension.
In mario kart the further you are behind, the faster you go. With the setup we have, people know that if they lose, its only going to get worse.
The only equalizing mechanic I can think of at the moment is giving Divine more power the further their organization is behind. They are furious that Their vision is being denied, and they take a greater interest in what is happening. Perhaps each nation can have a score of # of villages + cultural center + # of domothos + # of flares. If your org is in last place, your Patron can give everyone in that org a free 5 day TF, urging their people to do better. If they are in second to last place, a free 5 day HF, etc.
The supposed balance that I would like to see is: If you are doing well, you can raise individual ascendants with copious power. If you are doing poorly, you will have more Divine sponsored powers that affect the whole of the nation boosting everyone to give it a shot.
That's called "unstable equilibrium" where the more you win, the more you win. Domoths are an example of unstable equilibrium, because the more domoths you have, the more blessings you'll have available to get the next domoth. Each victory makes the next victory easier to acquire.
Honestly though, at least with things like revolts and aetherflares, there is a possible solution. Simply make it so that for each village/bubble you have, getting the next one becomes slightly more difficult. Don't hardlock it as impossible in any way, but ensure that those without an advantage fight on a more even footing with those with. Of course, balancing this is difficult in itself. But still, if for every aetherbubble you have, you need to shoot a bubble one more time to claim it, it'd certainly make it easier for other cities to challenge you.
This isn't something I've thought long and hard about, but it's something to consider.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
P.S. if the administration made decisions based off how much bitching could be avoided, affinity, increased commodity costs, the overhaul, angel shackles, and so on would not exist.
P.S. if the administration made decisions based off how much bitching could be avoided, affinity, increased commodity costs, the overhaul, angel shackles, and so on would not exist.
Most (all?) of the things you name are out of the control of most (all?) of the volunteer admin. We do have plenty of conversations about not doing things that would cause players to complain whenever some starry-eyed new god comes up with interesting conflict quest mechanic x or sweet new event y, though.
P.S. if the administration made decisions based off how much bitching could be avoided, affinity, increased commodity costs, the overhaul, angel shackles, and so on would not exist.
Most (all?) of the things you name are out of the control of most (all?) of the volunteer admin. We do have plenty of conversations about not doing things that would cause players to complain whenever some starry-eyed new god comes up with interesting conflict quest mechanic x or sweet new event y, though.
The fact that the question "Will the players complain?" is a question that needs asking when brainstorming new ideas for the game makes me very sad. Maybe we as players need to start considering when to pick and choose our battles, before the admin start writing off more and more ideas because 'too many players will complain'. Or are we already too far past that point?
P.S. if the administration made decisions based off how much bitching could be avoided, affinity, increased commodity costs, the overhaul, angel shackles, and so on would not exist.
Most (all?) of the things you name are out of the control of most (all?) of the volunteer admin. We do have plenty of conversations about not doing things that would cause players to complain whenever some starry-eyed new god comes up with interesting conflict quest mechanic x or sweet new event y, though.
The fact that the question "Will the players complain?" is a question that needs asking when brainstorming new ideas for the game makes me very sad. Maybe we as players need to start considering when to pick and choose our battles, before the admin start writing off more and more ideas because 'too many players will complain'. Or are we already too far past that point?
To be fair, sometimes they are awful ideas that have been complained about for good reason. Feedback is important, both positive and negative.
I would rather see animated NPCs complaining about alliances and whatnot than gods. When a god comments on politics, there's a lot of pressure for people in their order to comply. Even for people outside the order, it's not always easy to argue with a god. If an NPC gets animated, I think there's a bigger chance for discussion about these things. Less dictatorial, even though it still makes the administrations' feelings about things clear.
For example, if Hallifax is contemplating an alliance with Gaudiguch, I'd rather see Lilliana Sunfar raise a complaint than Zvoltz. We can debate the merits of the alliance and have a good time doing so. If Zvoltz does it, that's kind of a divine commandment for his order and people who dispute it are going to look kind of blasphemous. I'm personally completely ok with looking like a god-hating blasphemer, but a lot of people are not. I think meddling with people at a lower power level has a greater potential for interesting interactions.
Really, I think my general feeling with gods is that you're more interesting when you animate NPCs than when you play your god roles. Animate more NPCs. Maybe even institute some variant on ISSUE where people can register interest in specific NPCs getting some animation love.
Beyond that, event-based meddling is more interesting than commandment meddling. If (for an arbitrary example) the admin decided that Hallifax should fight both of the forests (You guys can totally decide this and I will enjoy it greatly) then you shouldn't have Zvoltz or Jadice come down from on high and declare the forests to be anathema to them. Have some scientist (I volunteer as tribute) develop some industrial thingy that relies on masses of fae being harvested for use as slave labor. Make it into a little quest thing or an event that includes a reason for Hallifax as a whole to care, and let us do conflict naturally. If you wanna disrupt a specific alliance, have some NPC give the Board a proposal to send a crack team of field operatives to sabotage our ally and then have them get caught.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
Divine event - doesn't necessarily even need gods. You can make the pool turn yellow and refuse to give out power if members openly consort with dirty forestals
For a game that features player elected leadership, I think it would be a bad idea to undermine that mechanic with 'do things this way or you will be punished.'
I would far rather see your first option happen, the mechanics of conflict favoring 1vAll.
As a rather extreme example, personal enemies could be removed and replaced with every single person who is not part of your org. Then all passive negative effects will hit your org allies and enemies alike. It will be much harder for multiple orgs to cluster into one room and hammer the odd man out, but not impossible.
For Mister Zvoltz, Pejat has been terminated by the Replicant Dynodeon.
Yes, that's fine, I was just mentioning that there were multiple ways of going about it, both mechanically and socially.
Portius hit the nail on the head when I mentioned divine events. Those examples encourage breaking things up without need for the admin. Gods coming from on high is the most heavy handed and laziest solution, but it is a solution nonetheless.
Comments
Celest: Wants everyone to stop bickering and get along. Is willing to be allies with anyone except Magnagora and Gaudiguch. Prefers Serenwilde to Glomdoring, if only because Serenwilde has less ambiguous demands and doesn't seem interested in Magnagora.
Serenwilde: Hates Glomdoring, wants to recruit anyone they can get into an alliance to destroy Glomdoring. Has repeatedly informed Celest (and presumably Hallifax) that they will not ally with anyone who will not help them attack Glomdoring.
Hallifax: Wants their allies not escalate tensions with Gaudiguch up to the point of constant Continuum/Vortex raiding. Otherwise just wants a reasonable number of noncontroversial allies.
Glomdoring: Noone in Celest knows what Glomdoring wants or who they are talking to. But in the past, Glomdoring has been if not a bad ally, at least an annoying ally. There's a reputation (deserved or not) of Glomdoring following the letter of a treaty while ignoring the spirit.
Gaudiguch: See, Hallifax, but replace "a reasonable number of noncontroversial allies" with "the minimum number of foreign entanglements required to chase off raiders"
Magnagora: CELESTIA DELENDA EST with a side of "Counties with a G in their name are superior".
Ex: only the members of x organization can domoth and only one org can contest.
Ex: big divine event that reaffirms that all other orgs are wrong because y.
Where can I protest?
-gets picket sign-
Like that one time that one divine was doing 90% of an org's events and that org was happy until they figured out who it was and threw a fit because "favoritism".
Domoths - add a power or essence or limited resource x to contesting. Make it only worthwhile for enemies, not allies. Maybe have it require fae or angels or x. Or tie it to city relations or enemy status. Lots of options.
Divine event - doesn't necessarily even need gods. You can make the pool turn yellow and refuse to give out power if members openly consort with dirty forestals, or what if cririk came back as a zombie and disavowed hallifax because blah, or even just made events that ran stories demonstrating why x ally org is a bad place. It would be more interesting than yet another "need essence" event #1244566.
Honestly though, at least with things like revolts and aetherflares, there is a possible solution. Simply make it so that for each village/bubble you have, getting the next one becomes slightly more difficult. Don't hardlock it as impossible in any way, but ensure that those without an advantage fight on a more even footing with those with. Of course, balancing this is difficult in itself. But still, if for every aetherbubble you have, you need to shoot a bubble one more time to claim it, it'd certainly make it easier for other cities to challenge you.
This isn't something I've thought long and hard about, but it's something to consider.
I would rather see animated NPCs complaining about alliances and whatnot than gods. When a god comments on politics, there's a lot of pressure for people in their order to comply. Even for people outside the order, it's not always easy to argue with a god. If an NPC gets animated, I think there's a bigger chance for discussion about these things. Less dictatorial, even though it still makes the administrations' feelings about things clear.
For example, if Hallifax is contemplating an alliance with Gaudiguch, I'd rather see Lilliana Sunfar raise a complaint than Zvoltz. We can debate the merits of the alliance and have a good time doing so. If Zvoltz does it, that's kind of a divine commandment for his order and people who dispute it are going to look kind of blasphemous. I'm personally completely ok with looking like a god-hating blasphemer, but a lot of people are not. I think meddling with people at a lower power level has a greater potential for interesting interactions.
Really, I think my general feeling with gods is that you're more interesting when you animate NPCs than when you play your god roles. Animate more NPCs. Maybe even institute some variant on ISSUE where people can register interest in specific NPCs getting some animation love.
Beyond that, event-based meddling is more interesting than commandment meddling. If (for an arbitrary example) the admin decided that Hallifax should fight both of the forests (You guys can totally decide this and I will enjoy it greatly) then you shouldn't have Zvoltz or Jadice come down from on high and declare the forests to be anathema to them. Have some scientist (I volunteer as tribute) develop some industrial thingy that relies on masses of fae being harvested for use as slave labor. Make it into a little quest thing or an event that includes a reason for Hallifax as a whole to care, and let us do conflict naturally. If you wanna disrupt a specific alliance, have some NPC give the Board a proposal to send a crack team of field operatives to sabotage our ally and then have them get caught.