Organizational conflict is a big part of Lusternia. But, it's also a complex and confusing part that nobody seems to agree about. The administration and different sections of the playerbase are at odds with each other about what it means, how it should be implemented, and how important it should be. This thread is for general discussion regarding it, and for me to post some thoughts and suggestions of my own.

First, our conflict model is one of directly harming an organization. This is bad, since we can't have organizational death; you can't let one org conquer another here. So, we have to follow another model. I'm calling this the 'colonial' model, although it doesn't have to involve colonies, per se. The real-life model I'm using here is Europe, about the 15th-16th centuries.

The major colonial powers of that time were extremely balanced militarily and politically in the Old World (They also had no interest in killing each other, but let's ignore that for now). It was unfeasible for any one to really defeat another.

In the colonies, however, there was fierce, ongoing competition for goods. Colonial wars emerged often, and the powers were in a constant race to see who got richer.

You see what this entails? Competition would be a race you'd be trying to one-up your competitors. You'd get benefits from being first place, but being last place wouldn't make the game unplayable. Competition would consist of getting more points for yourself and thwarting everyone else's attempts at getting points, not in frustrating everyone including yourselves in quests and raids that go on and on and on.

Does that make sense? Discuss.

6/10.

I'd keep that on the WoW forums where it belongs, not here. Constructive arguments, disagreements, praise, or input only please.

Personally, I dislike the idea. It's like a "Pk realm" in a MMORPG, just instead of PK, this is the only place where we can have conflict that matters. Conflict SHOULD matter, that's the whole point.

If we're looking to change conflict, but not having the losing side be utterly destroyed (Because we can't) Or having it suffer too heavy a loss (Because then it isn't fun), we should think about that, and deal with that, not escape to another arena. Escaping to another arena may well lead us into a loophole where that arena becomes problematic as well, and then we have to move over to another one, and so on.

So, while Colonies, or something similar in way of playing may be a nice, interesting addition, it is not, in my opinion, a good replacement or something to count on. I'd say our biggest need, and what'll help us most, is careful balancing of the existing quests, or perhaps even changing them, but not avoiding them altogether, not in the form of making them not harm the opposing organization, or in the form of ignoring them entirely, and moving to another place for our conflicts.

Competition in Lusternia is primarily over power and commodities. We occassionally go to war over them. Yes, the overarching theme is org death, but in reality, the conflict is over resources. Conflict quests are a way of delineating the conflict over some sources of these commodities.

Whats the case for conflict quests working?

Exactly. So we might as well admit that and move conflict towards this kind of competition, instead of thinking that it's about directly harming another organization. That can't be implemented here, plain and simple.

Of course no orgnization can win against the other, but we can't just say "Meh, this doesn't matter, let's drop the conflict altogether". I don't think that'll work, and personally, I don't want that.

Conflicts can be of the kind that are meant to damage the other organization, but are unable to completely destroy it. Personally, I didn't find the old sea quests, for example, that bad - The cities always seemed to manage, even with no Sand/Spectres. If this proved to be too hard, or not enough fun for the players, so be it, but we don't need to move the conflict elsewhere entirely. Make sand spawning more rare, have less spectres - Have the organization damaged. A damaged organization will lose villages, and come, as close as possible to destroying it. Instead of looking at the game like Europe of the 15-16th centuries, look at it like Europe of WWI - There are enough forces for large, aggressive, effective to some measure, actions, but not enough to completely win.

Er... someone eventually won. And I'm not advocating we get rid of conflict, I'm saying we might as well change its focus.

While I do agree with Verithrax in the point that someone actually won, Im also agreeing with HawkEmpire because the country that lost wasnt destroyed. And Im going to agree more with Verithrax because too many changes came on Germany afterwards.

Er, Germany was forbidden from having a standing army and went into a long depression before WWII. All-out war, in which you have a winner that can impose conditions on a loser, doesn't work.

You do realize that I was agreeing with you right and that I was stating that a lot of changes came to Germany everytime they lost a war? The first WW they lost all of their colonies, their army and had to pay tithes to the winners which put them into the depression. They lost their monarchy as well.

If something like what was suggested by HawkEmpire was to be put in it wouldnt be able to be carried through because there can be no loser to the scale of the World Wars.

Yes. We can't even reach a point at which an organization loses, at all. It has to be something continuous. Which is why we have to move conflict out of the organization's backyards and into something else that relates to their intake of commodities, power and 'points' (Some measurement of accomplishment or another) without being frustrating for the players.

But what I think you're still trying to realize is that's the way it already is. That's not changing the focus of anything.

Let's not get into small details here. Someone won and someone lost, but not in the sense of being decimated into nothingness. No country had the power for swift victory, or even a non-swift one - Most of the war people sat a Foxholes shooting in the general direction of another foxholes, a bit away from there.

And, I don't see what's the point of taking conflict, and turning it into something that just sits there, and doesn't matter, like Magnagora not being hurt by a loss, but it's "colony" may be. So what? I don't want my wars to be there for me to have something to do. I don't want to have a Mag-Celest annual basketball game, nor am I in favour of CTF's every now and then, like Imperian and Achaea had a lot. They're nice, but they're also meaningless. Having even the fiercest and most intersting of conflicts have no real change over how things are done, renders it meaningless.

Like in WW1, Like in all modern wars, no victory is translated into the complete decimation of your foe. But, the military acheivement creates opportunity for political acheivement. For example:

Serenwilde hates Wyrd - Status quo
Serenwilde needs to get rid of Spirit thingies - Attitude change towards Wyrd because the Wyrd now has leverage. The same as it would have if it forced Serenwilde into a weaker position during a war.

Never mind that Serenwilde changed that back later - that's the nature of relationships between countries.
Victories over the other country should be translated into changes. This will also help motivate RP, and help the players influence changes to the world.

Verithrax - Get the Lusternian Diplomatic Gathering to serve as the UN, and break wars before the decimation of the country. It will also enforce the concessions. Tempting, ey?

I think hawk is saying that nobody lost, the same way that the Navajo Indians, did lose. Or, Gaul lost.

Don't know about any of the other governments, but Serenwilde's would never go along with it.

In any event, Verithrax is right. Lusternia would need to change some of its most basic (and profitable) premises in order to allow havoc to be wrought on any of the major communities.

And the villages don't count as meaningful for storytelling purposes because they remain cyclical and shifting. The only way to achieve meaningful conflict in Lusternia is through the use of mile posts to chart forward progress, where head to head opposition is an option, but not the only option.

The serves as the universal internet sign of not being serious. And even if not, I wasn't, so no worries.
At any rate, I wasn't implicating anything too specific, and I understand suggestions that mimic Real life solutions closely are hard to find equivalents for in Lusternia.

My main point is - Chagne the Conflict, sure, but don't dislocate it, put it somewhere unrelated, and said you solved the problem.