This is simply a discussion starter. Do any of you think there is anything we can do to increase conflict here? Sure, we have raids on planes and the like. But, they seem few and far between to me. The poor communes seem to have next to none.

Anyways, ideas and such?

I think in most cases, the lack of conflict in some areas stem from the reality that not everybody likes conflict. A lot of people just enjoy hunting, performing their trade skills, etc. without conflict.

The other problem is that those who promote conflict tend to have the same character traits that make them generally not very well-liked. Shamarah is one example, he has a special 'gift' for stirring up conflict, in combat and politics. Still, he's brash and a lot of people don't like his character much, and so they don't want to support him to further the conflict.

In my own observations (not to offend anyone, just the way I have seen things), the leaders in the communes are usually more sympathetic, and try to make the game fun for everyone. They're usually really well-liked, but they also tend to squelch conflict. The leaders in the cities have tended toward being less caring. They stir up conflict, encourage people to get involved in it, but sometimes aren't as popular. I think Daevos is one of the few people who has found a good balance between the two. He encourages conflict, but he's still respected by every side, and doesn't turn it into a grief-match.

So, what would fix it? Everyone, act more like Daevos! Go out and cause a little bit of trouble, stir things up, but be responsible enough to know when you've crossed the line and it's not 'fun' conflict anymore. Also, as much as I love combat, I wish people would learn to integrate other types of conflict - political pressure, economic contests, etc.. I think there are plenty of opportunities for conflict, and more are on their way in the form of nexus world structures, but we as a player base aren't very good at taking advantage of them.

All I can say is...wonderfully said! We have plenty of hard coded opporitunities for conflict. It pretty much boils down to the players actually using what we already have.

I always end up bored bashing all the time I'm in game. We need to stir up some excitement!

Learn to fight, go fight.

There is plenty of conflict if you use your imagination and create it.

Yeah, but it's much more interesting if there are groups involved. 1/1 is ok and all, it just provides for better RP with groups.

Pfft... you don't have to fight to have conflict.

Its easy to drag groups into your conflict, just be loud about it.

Here's a question:

Is there any benefit for creating confilict, other than the fact that you get to fight? Whether it's between cities or between people, conflict is usually run by the want or need of something. Maybe if there were significant prizes for winning there'd be more conflict.

One problem with that idea though is that that can lead to a rich get richer/poor get poorer situation. I don't really know that situation right now, but from the general atmosphere it seems like Celest/Seren outnumbers Mag/Glomdoring 10:1 (okay, a little bit of an exageration, but hey). If the numbers get extreme enough, the cities who have less people won't ever be able to win, which would just lead to more people being unhappy and leaving, causing even less people to be there.

Just things to think about.

Go try Achaea.

Erylan, I love your signature.

More like spend credits/trans skills, then get zMUD or MUSH and get a system.

The real problem most players have with Lusternian conflicts (and MUD conflicts in general) is that they turn into seemingly endless cycles of ruthless combat, until finally they just fall apart due to massive war fatigue.

A conflict that furthered a role-playing plot or came to a battle over resources, that had a path to final, clear, decisive victory; could be won by either side; and then ENDED would probably receive a lot of support if anyone figured out how to set it up.

You -HAVE- to be kidding. I played Achaea for over 2 years. There's plenty of conflict, but it's just...ack, not going to derail this thread!




I've also found that unless you're a full member of your guild, among other requirements, you can't join any city's military. Which means, you cannot go along during raids. Which limits a LOT of conflict for those who haven't been around forever.

He should add the bit about how "his old man is a Rolling Stone."

How hard is it to become a full guild member? Not very.

Daganev is right, if you want to cause trouble, start a coup, overthrow Nejii and start a war!

And Noola, WTF is your avatar again...

This may prove difficult considering that 1) He's a Magnagoran and 2) I'm retired in about 5 hours anyway.

I for one would like to see more guild on guild conflicts. The Harbingers should be challenging the other bard guilds to see who harbours the most talent. Or at least put themselves out there. I regret now retiring as a secretary, I'll never see me naughty plans come to fruition.




...or will I?

It IS important to remember not all conflict really has to have 'omgwtf owned' and other warlike effects.

I'm satisfied with my trade conflict as it is.

The Cacophony accept any bard on bard combat tournament. You know.. In the interests of seeing who's got the most talent.