If you define victory as denying things to others, and a loss as them getting things, regardless of your own personal gain, then quite frankly you deserve the "loss". I really think you should take a step back and reevaluate why you play the game.
This is why I stopped playing. Talking about how denying the enemy a win *is* the point of competition is a really telling mask off moment. It reveals that the drive to punish other players is behind [at least some of] rhetoric about the value of competition here.
Putting Allies against each other is a bad idea. Having to rely on RNG is just as bad.
Balancing sides out is going to be hard. Limiting how many people of a side isn't really going to work (at least as long as alliances aren't hardcoded). THe idea that every org should be on their own isn't either.
I know it isn't really a solution, but IHC restricting themselves is really the only answer I can think of. (which I know, why would they do that). But when IHC can keep calling in more people that it starts to even reach 3:1 numbers where as SL can't and it just leads to more people giving up because we can't muster the numbers.
Idea reliant on honour system and open communication (even if it's IC yells). Goal: Allow people to participate when timequake occurs for them.
After some window where available participants are roughly determined, organise. Window could be before second anomaly may appear. (First 9 minutes?)
Alliance with bigger numbers could split into teams of roughly equal combat ability to side currently fielding smaller number. These teams wait outside or in staging and may tag in/out as a group in windows. Window is probably when an anomaly is claimed.
Current team must exit before next team enters.
If the difference is not great, singular people to tag in/out wait in same locations.
Somehow allow people to join in after initial organising window. Combat window might need max minutes in case of heavy prolonged fighting and alternate team doesn't get to tag in based on anomaly release.
'Roughly equal' is pretty subjective, but I think any sort of solution that asks people to consider balance of teams may take some patience to figure out? Going purely off numbers might discourage people just starting in combat from participating, although a headcount's easier to measure.
The major problem with anything that's coming from the player side is that perspectives are skewed. I hear a lot of comments about how SL should be able to compete with a certain number, etc, when our reality is that we wipe when fighting certain people all the time.
So if you're relying on an honour system, it's still not exactly going to be fair because pure numbers don't count when 80% of the peope on one side do not have the artifacts, experience, or coding that the other do. Again, because I feel like I need to keep saying this, this is NOT saying IHC needs to feel responsible, guilty, etc for this. It's just a statement of fact. Something being worked on slowly, but it does mean there is a delay between intent and result on that front.
If you define victory as denying things to others, and a loss as them getting things, regardless of your own personal gain, then quite frankly you deserve the "loss". I really think you should take a step back and reevaluate why you play the game.
This is a valid point, but when was the last time you celebrated a victory by being steamrolled?
Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
The major problem with anything that's coming from the player side is that perspectives are skewed. I hear a lot of comments about how SL should be able to compete with a certain number, etc, when our reality is that we wipe when fighting certain people all the time.
So if you're relying on an honour system, it's still not exactly going to be fair because pure numbers don't count when 80% of the peope on one side do not have the artifacts, experience, or coding that the other do. Again, because I feel like I need to keep saying this, this is NOT saying IHC needs to feel responsible, guilty, etc for this. It's just a statement of fact. Something being worked on slowly, but it does mean there is a delay between intent and result on that front.
This is what I was saying about Random Glom Newbie /=/ Zagreus. Pitting the two against each other is not 1v1 in the traditional understanding of it. I see comments made in game about the the numbers often being roughly even - from my perspective, evaluating what I know of SKILL levels on both sides, SL doesn't have a chance in those "even battles". Which is not to say there aren't great combatants on SL's side or terrible ones on IHC's side. But overall, what Yinuish says is exactly the problem, and it's something that can't be fixed with headcounts or just adding more newbies to a given org.
"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."
Unfortunately, a lot of things that cause a skew of skill balance lies in how people interact with games: some people like to be on the "winning team" because it indicates a certain level of activity in those organizations. For instance, RP within the Order of Maylea caused a huge influx of new players into Serenwilde to join that RP because it was active and enjoyable for those participating. People come to IHC for combat because we are successful in combat. IHC has more people because people see that IHC has activity and want to be part of that activity.
This is not to say that everyone does this, but it's a trend in a lot of games that I've seen over a great many years of playing MUDs.
This partially means that one of the ways balance can be affected in a non-mechanical manner is through encouraging greater RP in the organizations that are limited. Even players can manage this, it isn't limited to our admin! Showing the Basin activity in an org will always spark some interest and increase the number of people who come join you.
Basically, my takeaway from the last few pages is that the current situation isn't really because of anything mechanical (though mechanical issues likely exist). It isn't because there is a lack of things to do. It really boils down to two general decisions that we made that caused people to leave.
The first being that we didn't immediately interfere in the 4v2 situation and directly try to resolve/change/interfere with it.
The second one being the Ascension decision.
Because we made what players feel like were the wrong decisions, they've stopped playing and think things like 'conflict is dead' etc.
Those players that stopped playing have left a void and the players currently playing are having a hard time filling it and trying to step in, which results in frustration on their end?
Does that sum it up?
If so, then the question is - what can we do to reverse this situation and move forward? We can hold a townhall, let people air their complaints, sure, but at some point, we need to stop discussing what happened and start discussing where we go from here.
I'm not sure why looking at Ascension is a bad thing, we said it's something we would look at. I particularly feel much more strongly that it needs changing since apparently it's become more important for the other side to lose than it is for your side to win.
We can also make adjustments to timequakes, make them shorter etc. That's all relatively easy to do. Would it change things though? A lot of the other suggestions just are not possible at the moment, as they would be too much of a time investment.
I'm still surprised by how boldly people state that they only participate to make the other team (or player) lose, as if it's not wildly unsportsmanlike and unacceptable in... well, every other competitive environment.
Listen, it's a text game- there are ties at the Olympics, you'll live.
This politics-level animosity for the "other team" is gross, especially considering how niche a community we already are.
Basically, my takeaway from the last few pages is that the current situation isn't because of anything mechanical. It isn't because there is a lack of things to do. It really boils down to two general decisions that we made that caused people to leave.
While the rest of your post is important I will point out one mechanical problem.
Personally going into an area and being hit by 5 different 'can't do anything' things (stun, paralysis, writhe, sprawled, broken limbs - I realize some of these are 'can't do anything until cured' but they are in the same vain) that all stack so that I can't do anything for 30 seconds is a problem. I think all of them stacking is too much and there needs to be some of limits on that type of affs that either stops you completely or requires you to cure something first before you can do anything else.
That's on top of the handful of ways a person can keep you in a room otherwise.
Basically, my takeaway from the last few pages is that the current situation isn't because of anything mechanical. It isn't because there is a lack of things to do. It really boils down to two general decisions that we made that caused people to leave.
While the rest of your post is important I will point out one mechanical problem.
Personally going into an area and being hit by 5 different 'can't do anything' things (stun, paralysis, writhe, sprawled, broken limbs - I realize some of these are 'can't do anything until cured' but they are in the same vain) that all stack so that I can't do anything for 30 seconds is a problem. I think all of them stacking is too much and there needs to be some of limits on that type of affs that either stops you completely or requires you to cure something first before you can do anything else.
That's on top of the handful of ways a person can keep you in a room otherwise.
I think this all needs more context before it can really be considered a problem. There are situations where this would be okay and others where this would not be okay.
But I will rephrase my statement and say that the current situation isn't really because of mechanical issues even though there may be some.
I've spoken with some other people that play on Shadowlight, and from what I understand certain prolific posters are in a (highly) vocal minority. While there are issues with the game balance in general and hopefully some steps can be done to remedy them, I think it's important that if resolutions or changes are to be made, that certain people aren't allowed to dominate the narrative simply because they shout the loudest.
I've spoken with some other people that play on Shadowlight, and from what I understand certain prolific posters are in a (highly) vocal minority. While there are issues with the game balance in general and hopefully some steps can be done to remedy them, I think it's important that if resolutions or changes are to be made, that certain people aren't allowed to dominate the narrative simply because they shout the loudest.
I can only based things on what I have been told myself when I have asked people and my posts reflect these ideas that I have been told (which I make no claim of being a majority).
Playing ascension to make the other side "lose" isn't a majority opinion (you'll note that I'm not really bringing that up myself - though it was definitely a strong subcurrent for some), but the notion that Ascension's aftermath has crushed morale / interest in participation certainly is more so. It gets hashed out on a regular basis on Trasto (admin are welcome to verify that themselves instead of listening to "Kali Hearsay" if they wish). Heck, I think someone even wrote a Trasto post encouraging not participating much (and no, it wasn't me, nor did I have any involvement with it- I've mostly just been listening to them, not interjecting, for a while now).
To Orael: I think that a firm commitment not to push an Ascension until things are in a better place is a good first step. Also, please note that I'm not suggesting a town hall to "air out past grievances"- while they may come up, the suggestion is to have a discussion with the players about steps forward. Because plenty of people have plenty of different opinions / thoughts. I feel, and have for a long time, that more discussion is better than less (I know I told Estarra this regularly in fact, in the days pre-Iosai/Ianir).
Past that, you say that other changes would take too much of a time investment. I guess that makes me wonder: Is this more important, or the economy fixes (the next project post end-zone, as I understand it)? Because if too-much-time is an issue, that drastically changes suggestions that might be made (and no, I don't really think that the tweaks you mention are going to do much).
PS: I'm definitely not saying not to make changes to the Ascension process, I think it's absolutely clear to everyone that it needs to be changed. I'm saying that it's probably not the right time to start talking about it yet. Right the ship before you start setting up the deck for a party.
Also, in reference to your question about mechanics: I think that you're
right, I think that things would be very different right now if
different choices had been made and all other mechanical things were
kept the same. That said, that doesn't mean that a mechanical solution
(or solutions) aren't the best path forward. Revamping/overhauling alliances and re-conceiving conflict in the game would be an option to basically "start over" / refresh it, but yeah... that's not a quick and easy fix.
I'm not sure that there is a quick and easy one, personally.
I'm not sure why looking at Ascension is a bad thing, we said it's something we would look at. I particularly feel much more strongly that it needs changing since apparently it's become more important for the other side to lose than it is for your side to win.
We can also make adjustments to timequakes, make them shorter etc. That's all relatively easy to do. Would it change things though? A lot of the other suggestions just are not possible at the moment, as they would be too much of a time investment.
I'm not speaking for anyone else but me here, but I think something that would help ME personally is knowing that my contributions other than PK will be going somewhere. An example is the Celest admin asking us for input on how we view the org and where we want to see it grow but there hasn't been much said or posted beyond that. I KNOW there will be plans going on in the background, but when we can't see or know about it it does feel like silence.
Also more admin involvement into making Celest a fun place to play. Some of our issue I think is retainment in the past because people say it's boring. While I am aware we can ask patron requests, when I've tried to spitball ideas I'm told I'm thinking too big/small because we don't know that the changes are on board with what the admin are thinking too. The current rebuilding is -amazing- (and I apologise to TLC that I seem to be dragging it out, I have... so much going on IRL right now so I'm finding it hard to get my stuff together IG, I promise I am not complaining about how things are going) but I am also concerned that once this is complete we might not get that level of consistency going forward unless I'm pushing other people in the org.
I also think some admin feedback on ideas proposed such as whether the idea of whether we can stop people from losing all villages in their org/alliance etc to a more significant degree than 'it can be looked at as part of the economy overhaul' would help.
The first being that we didn't immediately interfere in the 4v2 situation and directly try to resolve/change/interfere with it.
No real issues with the rest of your post, but I don't agree that the 4v2 was ever the main problem. The numbers were more balanced before Hallifax switched sides, and there were a lot of factors that caused the imbalance we currently have that can't be blamed on the in-game politics. The game politics currently aren't helping, but short of admin forcing an alliance shift or breaking all alliances, not sure what the solution is.
Edit: Also, realistically, forcing alliance changes isn't a solution cause it's just going to piss people off and cause them to switch sides again, or quit.
Heck, I think someone even wrote a Trasto post encouraging not participating much (and no, it wasn't me, nor did I have any involvement with it- I've mostly just been listening to them, not interjecting, for a while now).
For the record, I've seen that Trasto post and I think it makes a valid point and I can't fault anyone on SL side who feels the same way. But as far as I know it was only addressing the current imbalance, and seemed to be motivated from the same frustrations that made me create this thread.
"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."
The following is just from my perspective, so maybe be a little easy on me this go round?
Yes, a lot of our combat leaders threw the towel in. All at once. I agree that it did fall on the rest of us to "make up" for their absence. I for one, am not one of those who can so easily fill it. I'm not a Ixion or Xenthos or Snald, and I'm proab not ever going to be. Personally, I haven't felt the ability to "air out" everything that happened with Ascension and the fall out from it without repercussions. Reading through some of the stuff about the topic has made me as a player feel I don't have the right to have an opinion on it. Either speak up, be viewed as negative while having your views skewed into somehow being toxic or just try to deal with the situation and not complain too often.
Now, as it happened. Glom had a bit of an RP event too, right as the dust was settling from the previously mentioned event. It was a good event, don't get me wrong. It needed to be out in the open. But, seemingly, it hit a community that was already hurting hard. From there and looking onwards, we haven't exactly had a whole lot to build us back up, have we?
Where do you start. Mechanically speaking, raids while "conflict-type" events are happening need to be disabled or stopped. I remember being shoo'd out of Serenwilde Forest during "New Glom" because it seemed we'd outstayed our welcome by Admin, but yet this doesn't seem frowned upon. Rp wise, we need something to help bring us back together. Please. As far as people feeling burned out from just the sheer weight of everything seeming to ride on their shoulders. I'm not sure what I can say to help besides, hang in there. I'm right there with ya.
Xenthos, I'm having trouble figuring out what you want. On one hand:
If you're serious about addressing the game meta-balance, we're going to have to have buy-in from everyone, including the administration, to actually sit down and see what can be done to mend fences.
They could spend thousands of hours of coding your changes. Yet, that's all meaningless if after that there's still no conflict. They might as well not have wasted the time on it.
On the other:
Also, please note that I'm not suggesting a town hall to "air out past grievances"- while they may come up, the suggestion is to have a discussion with the players about steps forward.
On the surface, these look like conflicting statements, to me.
What does mend fences mean here? Is the argument that addressing mechanical imbalance is useless because your faction is disaffected by the decision and needs some concessions in order to overcome the feeling that conflict is useless? Is the argument that you don't think the Admin are capable of properly addressing the mechanics? Is the argument that you need to be at the table when mechanics changes are discussed? What do you actually think is the next step, specifically?
The first being that we didn't immediately interfere in the 4v2 situation and directly try to resolve/change/interfere with it.
The second one being the Ascension decision.
I disagree with these two sentiments. Not because they are incorrect, but because I am appalled that players have made it seem like the loss of players is the fault of the administration in these two instances. As someone who played during the 4v2, there were many times when IHC was unsuccessful against SL. The 4v2 did not actually imbalance the game; many new characters popped up in both Celest and Glomdoring and the conflict was complex and enjoyable.
I don't think it's the job of the administration to police alliances and make the excessively vocal minority happy when people are making choices for roleplay purposes. I think it is grossly inconsiderate that players make the administration feel like it is their job to police alliances instead of letting the players handle political things.
Ways we can mitigate this in the future, however, involve immutable alliances (like the ones in Aetolia and Imperian, that never change) or a universal no-alliance (like Achaea, where every city is out for themselves). Would this be effective here? Probably not! Once you're prone to making alliances, you're likely to try and make them again.
We could whittle down the organizations and merge them into larger super-organizations, eliminating the issue of having so many people spread across six cities/communes. This brings its own issues because there is a specific theme to each organization that might not sit well with people who like their org and are sad to see it dissolved.
I'm not sure what other methods we could have. There has to be some way to create healthy competition that fosters inter-organizational conflict without this Team Player vibe where you have to be loyal to your org all the way to out-of-character activities. Otherwise, the toxicity is going to keep spreading, especially if the excessively vocal minority continues to rehash things like petulant children.
Xenthos, I'm having trouble figuring out what you want. On one hand:
If you're serious about addressing the game meta-balance, we're going to have to have buy-in from everyone, including the administration, to actually sit down and see what can be done to mend fences.
They could spend thousands of hours of coding your changes. Yet, that's all meaningless if after that there's still no conflict. They might as well not have wasted the time on it.
On the other:
Also, please note that I'm not suggesting a town hall to "air out past grievances"- while they may come up, the suggestion is to have a discussion with the players about steps forward.
On the surface, these look like conflicting statements, to me.
What does mend fences mean here? Is the argument that addressing mechanical imbalance is useless because your faction is disaffected by the decision and needs some concessions in order to overcome the feeling that conflict is useless? Is the argument that you don't think the Admin are capable of properly addressing the mechanics? Is the argument that you need to be at the table when mechanics changes are discussed? What do you actually think is the next step, specifically?
I'm not sure how those are conflicting statements. To me they are both
saying the same thing (which I've also been posting repeatedly through
the thread). I think that the admin are capable of a great many things,
but it is going to require active intervention of some kind - and throughout, I have stated that I think intervention starts with dialogue, not just with the few people who visit the forums, but the broader playerbase (including, hopefully, some of those who have left in the past). It's not like I'm pretending to have all the answers here, because I don't. I simply, strongly, believe that talking with the players and trying to figure out where we can go from here is better than not doing so.
If I was to point at one thing that could be overhauled, it would be how alliances work. The "winner take all" nature of the game is the most troublesome of the competition to me- one organization wins and gets all the rewards, participation if you're going against the odds is pretty pointless. If you want an underdog team to participate, it's probably worthwhile to give them chances to win instead of the current state: the more one side wins, the easier it is for them to keep winning in the future.
Also, Vexacion, you can be appalled all you want, but the evidence is pretty clear. Players aren't making it "seem" like anything- the decisions cost the game players. It's not "toxic" to point out this fact. Where's Ciaran? Jaspet? Tarken? That's just a few names- plenty of others have either disappeared, or drastically reduced their time. It's not childish to miss your friends, to feel hurt that they're gone because of decisions outside of your control, and to adjust your playstyle accordingly. It's not childish to explain why you have done so, that lessons might be learned and things might changed. It is kinda toxic to tell people that they don't have a right to their own feelings though. Perhaps you might consider laying off of the attacks, because I don't see how you can do that while also decrying toxicity. Very counterproductive.
Also, Vexacion, you can be appalled all you want, but the evidence is pretty clear. Players aren't making it "seem" like anything- the decisions cost the game players. It's not "toxic" to point out this fact. Where's Ciaran? Jaspet? Tarken? That's just a few names- plenty of others have either disappeared, or drastically reduced their time. It's not childish to miss your friends, to feel hurt that they're gone because of decisions outside of your control, and to adjust your playstyle accordingly. It's not childish to explain why you have done so, that lessons might be learned and things might changed. It is kinda toxic to tell people that they don't have a right to their own feelings though. Perhaps you might consider laying off of the attacks, because I don't see how you can do that while also decrying toxicity. Very counterproductive.
That's not what she said. None of this has been said by anyone.
"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."
That's not what she said. None of this has been said by anyone.
Hmmm.
1. "Also, Vexacion, you can be appalled all you want, but the evidence is
pretty clear. Players aren't making it "seem" like anything- the
decisions cost the game players."
2. "Not because they are incorrect, but because I am appalled that players have made it seem like the loss of players is the fault of the administration in these two instances."
Well, that's pretty clear evidence that you're wrong- some of this has indeed been said by someone. Additionally, by telling us to "move on," that raising our concerns means we're acting like "petulant children," she is indeed saying that we don't have a right to talk about why we're not engaging. She's belittling how we feel, trying to diminish / squash it, and I don't see how anyone can with a straight face write this sentence in this context: "Otherwise, the toxicity is going to keep spreading, especially if the
excessively vocal minority continues to rehash things like petulant
children." She is herself becoming the toxicity that she so decries.
I'll quote this bit from earlier, from someone less vocal than I:
"Personally, I haven't felt the ability to "air out" everything that
happened with Ascension and the fall out from it without repercussions.
Reading through some of the stuff about the topic has made me as a
player feel I don't have the right to have an opinion on it. Either
speak up, be viewed as negative while having your views skewed into
somehow being toxic or just try to deal with the situation and not
complain too often. "
Posts like the ones I am pointing out are also an issue; it's a perfect match for what the author wrote here.
I'm still appalled at the pride that people have when they say they "play to make others lose." 2020 is really something!
And, to preempt it, no, not all viewpoints should be encouraged or respected. In fact, there are viewpoints that should be explicitly and actively eradicated, in game and in real life.
I'm not sure how those are conflicting statements.
To be clear, I see them as conflicting because in the first instance, it seems like you are indicating that the Admin need to make concessions to SL because of their perceived failures - and that without this "fence mending", no balance changes will ever be fruitious because you won't be willing to bring conflict to the table anyway.
The latter instance seems like you are disavowing that position.
What I was asking was what you meant by "mend fences", specifically. I'm trying to figure out what you want from Admin. Does it mean "make concessions to SL"? Does it mean "have a meeting with org leaders"? Does sitting in this very thread, interacting with us as we brainstorm possible measures, suffice? Your platform in this thread so far has, essentially, been that Admin should shoulder some responsibility for the game state. What specific action would satisfy your requirement? That's what I'd like to know.
I'm not sure how those are conflicting statements.
To be clear, I see them as conflicting because in the first instance, it seems like you are indicating that the Admin need to make concessions to SL because of their perceived failures - and that without this "fence mending", no balance changes will ever be fruitious because you won't be willing to bring conflict to the table anyway.
The latter instance seems like you are disavowing that position.
What I was asking was what you meant by "mend fences", specifically. I'm trying to figure out what you want from Admin. Does it mean "make concessions to SL"? Does it mean "have a meeting with org leaders"? Does sitting in this very thread, interacting with us as we brainstorm possible measures, suffice? Your platform in this thread so far has, essentially, been that Admin should shoulder some responsibility for the game state. What specific action would satisfy your requirement? That's what I'd like to know.
I do think that they should have done something for SL at the time to make both sides feel that they were invested and involved in the decision. I made that clear then; if they had done so, I don't think we'd be in as bad a shape now as we are.
I also think it's too late for that now. It would just feel kinda cheap / an afterthought, I guess? So it's kind of irrelevant. Trying to demand a concession now is too "looking back," and Orael wants to look forward. I think that's probably the best way to go, anyways.
Mending fences now is, to me, sitting down to rethink the future and direction of conflict in this game. We're in this place now. What can be done to shake it up and rebuild what we've lost? That's what I am looking for in terms of a talk, and an outcome.
Mending fences now is, to me, sitting down to rethink the future and direction of conflict in this game. We're in this place now. What can be done to shake it up and rebuild what we've lost? That's what I am looking for in terms of a talk, and an outcome.
You've written at length about how you feel regarding what was done at the time.
What does this look like, right now? Again, is this thread not enough? What exactly will be enough? What, specifically, do you want to see?
Big old skype call? Solicited feedback forum post? Discord chat? You've used the words "sitting down" countless times now, what does it look like?
Mending fences now is, to me, sitting down to rethink the future and direction of conflict in this game. We're in this place now. What can be done to shake it up and rebuild what we've lost? That's what I am looking for in terms of a talk, and an outcome.
You've written at length about how you feel regarding what was done at the time.
What does this look like, right now? Again, is this thread not enough? What exactly will be enough? What, specifically, do you want to see?
Big old skype call? Solicited feedback forum post? Discord chat? You've used the words "sitting down" countless times now, what does it look like?
I have also stated:
1) The forums are not an appropriate place, because they are frequented by a small subset of the game's players,
2) It is probably better as an in-game thing because that is where the players are, and
3) Used the word town-hall (Orael even repeated it!). It doesn't necessarily need to be town-hall style, but it would preferably be far more inclusive than here.
Mending fences now is, to me, sitting down to rethink the future and direction of conflict in this game. We're in this place now. What can be done to shake it up and rebuild what we've lost? That's what I am looking for in terms of a talk, and an outcome.
You've written at length about how you feel regarding what was done at the time.
What does this look like, right now? Again, is this thread not enough? What exactly will be enough? What, specifically, do you want to see?
Big old skype call? Solicited feedback forum post? Discord chat? You've used the words "sitting down" countless times now, what does it look like?
I have also stated:
1) The forums are not an appropriate place, because they are frequented by a small subset of the game's players,
2) It is probably better as an in-game thing because that is where the players are, and
3) Used the word town-hall (Orael even repeated it!). It doesn't necessarily need to be town-hall style, but it would preferably be far more inclusive than here.
1. That was never the purpose of my thread that you're admitting to have hijacked for your own purposes.
2. You could have sent an email/issue instead or
3. Not participated.
What it comes down to is that you only want to air the opinions you like. I'd call that toxic.
"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."
1) The forums are not an appropriate place, because they are frequented by a small subset of the game's players,
2) It is probably better as an in-game thing because that is where the players are, and
3)
Used the word town-hall (Orael even repeated it!). It doesn't
necessarily need to be town-hall style, but it would preferably be far
more inclusive than here.
You have indeed mentioned point 1,
but I must have completely missed points 2 and 3, there. I still can't find anything from you in this thread regarding the nebulous "it" being better as an in-game thing.
Mending fences now is, to me, sitting down to rethink the future and direction of conflict in this game. We're in this place now. What can be done to shake it up and rebuild what we've lost? That's what I am looking for in terms of a talk, and an outcome.
You've written at length about how you feel regarding what was done at the time.
What does this look like, right now? Again, is this thread not enough? What exactly will be enough? What, specifically, do you want to see?
Big old skype call? Solicited feedback forum post? Discord chat? You've used the words "sitting down" countless times now, what does it look like?
I have also stated:
1) The forums are not an appropriate place, because they are frequented by a small subset of the game's players,
2) It is probably better as an in-game thing because that is where the players are, and
3) Used the word town-hall (Orael even repeated it!). It doesn't necessarily need to be town-hall style, but it would preferably be far more inclusive than here.
1. That was never the purpose of my thread that you're admitting to have hijacked for your own purposes.
2. You could have sent an email/issue instead or
3. Not participated.
What it comes down to is that you only want to air the opinions you like. I'd call that toxic.
I am airing the opinions important to me. You're airing the opinions important to you. That's kind of how a discussion works. Of the two of us, you're the only one who has flatly told the other to stop talking, stop participating, and go away.
Comments
This is why I stopped playing. Talking about how denying the enemy a win *is* the point of competition is a really telling mask off moment. It reveals that the drive to punish other players is behind [at least some of] rhetoric about the value of competition here.
Idea reliant on honour system and open communication (even if it's IC yells). Goal: Allow people to participate when timequake occurs for them.
Somehow allow people to join in after initial organising window. Combat window might need max minutes in case of heavy prolonged fighting and alternate team doesn't get to tag in based on anomaly release.
'Roughly equal' is pretty subjective, but I think any sort of solution that asks people to consider balance of teams may take some patience to figure out? Going purely off numbers might discourage people just starting in combat from participating, although a headcount's easier to measure.
Avatar made through Picrew
So if you're relying on an honour system, it's still not exactly going to be fair because pure numbers don't count when 80% of the peope on one side do not have the artifacts, experience, or coding that the other do. Again, because I feel like I need to keep saying this, this is NOT saying IHC needs to feel responsible, guilty, etc for this. It's just a statement of fact. Something being worked on slowly, but it does mean there is a delay between intent and result on that front.
This is not to say that everyone does this, but it's a trend in a lot of games that I've seen over a great many years of playing MUDs.
This partially means that one of the ways balance can be affected in a non-mechanical manner is through encouraging greater RP in the organizations that are limited. Even players can manage this, it isn't limited to our admin! Showing the Basin activity in an org will always spark some interest and increase the number of people who come join you.
So yeah. There's that, at least.
The first being that we didn't immediately interfere in the 4v2 situation and directly try to resolve/change/interfere with it.
The second one being the Ascension decision.
Because we made what players feel like were the wrong decisions, they've stopped playing and think things like 'conflict is dead' etc.
Those players that stopped playing have left a void and the players currently playing are having a hard time filling it and trying to step in, which results in frustration on their end?
Does that sum it up?
If so, then the question is - what can we do to reverse this situation and move forward? We can hold a townhall, let people air their complaints, sure, but at some point, we need to stop discussing what happened and start discussing where we go from here.
I'm not sure why looking at Ascension is a bad thing, we said it's something we would look at. I particularly feel much more strongly that it needs changing since apparently it's become more important for the other side to lose than it is for your side to win.
We can also make adjustments to timequakes, make them shorter etc. That's all relatively easy to do. Would it change things though? A lot of the other suggestions just are not possible at the moment, as they would be too much of a time investment.
This politics-level animosity for the "other team" is gross, especially considering how niche a community we already are.
(Delete ascension, descend everyone, VAs only!)
But I will rephrase my statement and say that the current situation isn't really because of mechanical issues even though there may be some.
I can only based things on what I have been told myself when I have asked people and my posts reflect these ideas that I have been told (which I make no claim of being a majority).
Also more admin involvement into making Celest a fun place to play. Some of our issue I think is retainment in the past because people say it's boring. While I am aware we can ask patron requests, when I've tried to spitball ideas I'm told I'm thinking too big/small because we don't know that the changes are on board with what the admin are thinking too. The current rebuilding is -amazing- (and I apologise to TLC that I seem to be dragging it out, I have... so much going on IRL right now so I'm finding it hard to get my stuff together IG, I promise I am not complaining about how things are going) but I am also concerned that once this is complete we might not get that level of consistency going forward unless I'm pushing other people in the org.
I also think some admin feedback on ideas proposed such as whether the idea of whether we can stop people from losing all villages in their org/alliance etc to a more significant degree than 'it can be looked at as part of the economy overhaul' would help.
Edit: Also, realistically, forcing alliance changes isn't a solution cause it's just going to piss people off and cause them to switch sides again, or quit.
For the record, I've seen that Trasto post and I think it makes a valid point and I can't fault anyone on SL side who feels the same way. But as far as I know it was only addressing the current imbalance, and seemed to be motivated from the same frustrations that made me create this thread.
The following is just from my perspective, so maybe be a little easy on me this go round?
Yes, a lot of our combat leaders threw the towel in. All at once. I agree that it did fall on the rest of us to "make up" for their absence. I for one, am not one of those who can so easily fill it. I'm not a Ixion or Xenthos or Snald, and I'm proab not ever going to be.
Personally, I haven't felt the ability to "air out" everything that happened with Ascension and the fall out from it without repercussions. Reading through some of the stuff about the topic has made me as a player feel I don't have the right to have an opinion on it. Either speak up, be viewed as negative while having your views skewed into somehow being toxic or just try to deal with the situation and not complain too often.
Now, as it happened. Glom had a bit of an RP event too, right as the dust was settling from the previously mentioned event. It was a good event, don't get me wrong. It needed to be out in the open. But, seemingly, it hit a community that was already hurting hard. From there and looking onwards, we haven't exactly had a whole lot to build us back up, have we?
Where do you start.
Mechanically speaking, raids while "conflict-type" events are happening need to be disabled or stopped. I remember being shoo'd out of Serenwilde Forest during "New Glom" because it seemed we'd outstayed our welcome by Admin, but yet this doesn't seem frowned upon.
Rp wise, we need something to help bring us back together. Please. As far as people feeling burned out from just the sheer weight of everything seeming to ride on their shoulders. I'm not sure what I can say to help besides, hang in there. I'm right there with ya.
I don't think it's the job of the administration to police alliances and make the excessively vocal minority happy when people are making choices for roleplay purposes. I think it is grossly inconsiderate that players make the administration feel like it is their job to police alliances instead of letting the players handle political things.
Ways we can mitigate this in the future, however, involve immutable alliances (like the ones in Aetolia and Imperian, that never change) or a universal no-alliance (like Achaea, where every city is out for themselves). Would this be effective here? Probably not! Once you're prone to making alliances, you're likely to try and make them again.
We could whittle down the organizations and merge them into larger super-organizations, eliminating the issue of having so many people spread across six cities/communes. This brings its own issues because there is a specific theme to each organization that might not sit well with people who like their org and are sad to see it dissolved.
I'm not sure what other methods we could have. There has to be some way to create healthy competition that fosters inter-organizational conflict without this Team Player vibe where you have to be loyal to your org all the way to out-of-character activities. Otherwise, the toxicity is going to keep spreading, especially if the excessively vocal minority continues to rehash things like petulant children.
And, to preempt it, no, not all viewpoints should be encouraged or respected. In fact, there are viewpoints that should be explicitly and actively eradicated, in game and in real life.
Explorer (80%), Achiever (53%), Socializer (53%), Killer (13%)
Bartle Taxonomy
(test yourself)
2. You could have sent an email/issue instead or
3. Not participated.
What it comes down to is that you only want to air the opinions you like. I'd call that toxic.