Given the fact that conflict quests seem to exist between the two cities, as well as the two communes. There lies a pretty definitive line, mechanics wise, of what sort of damage organizations are capable of dealing against one another. However, as times and IC politics change, we find ourselves in a state where communes and cities (or now one commune versus everybody) is taking place. Hai'Gloh and XI brought forth a pretty neat addition to the game, but now with the Commune vs Cities conflict dead, cities lack a way to harm communes and communes lack a way to harm cities.

The following, and I'm sure it's not the first time, is proposed:

+ Allow Cities/Communes to convert each others Super Mobs. Lhiannan would gain the ability to convert Supernals/Demon Lords. As would Albion. Elohora can convert Avatars, as would Luciphage to attack the opposing org's Drums, Flame, Star, or Necromantate.

+ Bring back Nexus World battles. I thought it was awesome to have Ravenwood Mechs and Celestial Constructs battling each other.

+ Allow the melding of opposing Elemental Planes when the Black Tide/Shattered Earth quests are performed.

+ Create a quest similar to the opposing Elemental Planes (with similar difficulty and mobs), that allows for the opposing organization to meld in the other orgs Ethereal Counterpart.

+ With the growth of the Basin of Life, perhaps new villages could also now be created for revolts. I'd like to see a war system exist to capture villages, but perhaps that is a lingering hope from Imperian kicking in. But I think more villages for revolts wouldn't exactly be a bad idea, and a little bit more depth to be added to the village system.

These are just some sample ideas I have, which would help expand upon conflict a bit. As it stands, I find myself bored with the same raids and expectations day in and day out.

I've responded to a few of your points in bold. I think we have open ears for mechanics to encourage meaningful conflict, but I know (at least on these points, and I suspect all of them) you're asking for a lot of work. A rework of Nexus World battles, for example, would be a month project akin to Streamlining Conflict, I suspect.

As an addendum, consider request one - you're asking for eight new conflict quests - and, should we ever release another organization, like Ackleberry, that's 4 more (twelve!) - and should Gaudiguch and Hallifax ever come, that's five more each plush one for each other (12 + 10 + 2 = 24). Twenty-four new conflict quests! Scary.

While I understand that there is a general refusal to allow city/commune conflict, I have to ask what are the grounds for refusing said change. It doesn't exactly make sense apart from the, "Oh. We just don't want to do this" bit. It also has a huge amount of player support, as evidenced in another thread. And as far as Nexus World battles, or conflict in general, if you were to use that solution of 'oh, well it's just used for griefing'. Then you'd pretty much have to remove organizations, and Lusternia as a whole. It is a game based on conflict, after all.

EDIT: Plus, I think the playerbase (for the most part) has given up on the hopes of Gaudiguch, Hallifax, Jojobo, and Ackleberry. It seems unlikely. So having conflict for the existing orgs would be a plus.

Regarding being able to attack orgs besides your direct opposite... We know you have said no many times. If you said yes, we could stop asking. However if Lusternian conflict is actually driven by players and not mechanics, then I have to agree, revisiting the ways that orgs are able to score a point against their opponents is worth spending some time on. We're not necessarily looking for unique honour quests for every org, either, and certainly nothing on the level of hai'Gloh/XI. I think we'd be happy with a cool emote of Gwyllgi fleshrending corpses and some small bonus or something, not even necessarily power. But really, anything. If it is true that Lusternia's conflict is dynamic, (and I assume that the admin would like to believe it is) then there must be equal incentive to ally with/against anyone else.

The remark about nexus battles being a too little used mechanic is a joke, especially for those of us who are aware of the exact circumstance under which the mechanic was removed. Glom's night altar went down twice. My first ever raid on Celest was during a mini-weakening, just disabling constructs. Aspace fights during weakenings were FUN, even when Glomdoring was regularly getting its teeth kicked in, specifically because of the equalizing nature of aetherspace. Given the revamps to aspace and the renewed interest in it, I think it's worth revisiting.

As far as making it less griefy? Allow a return of the other constructs, but keep immunity for the "most important one." Cut rebuild time, give immunity after rebuild for a certain time, limit the amount of ships/colossi which can attack to ensure that it's not really possible to take out multiple constructs in one weakening.

All very good ideas.

The first few sentences are the most important though.

I have to agree with all of this all the way. I miss the nexus battles and remember when they came out I was with them as it bought new fun to the game. When I left for a few reasons and came back a year later I was sad to hear they were gone as that brought a lot of people together for it meant you could help and not be a great fighter.

Yep, pretty much just pipe dreams and Event jokes we make.

Agreed with sentiments expressed above. I really enjoyed the Nexus battles, even when Glom was the losing org - especially then, as we were able to plot together, stay up late, get aetherships and try an (admittedly semi-failed) attack via aetherspace. Being able to do something like that as the underdog was a great way to keep us motivated and feeling like we still had a way to fight back, even if we were losing in other aspects of the game.

In addition, these kind of attacks were not random late-night raids, as weakenings had very clear set timelines for when they could occur, ensuring that people weren't caught off guard by a sudden surge of enemies randomly logging in at off hours just to raid - people would know when weakenings were coming!

Maybe, in addition to the options mentioned above, add in a way to "disable" constructs so they would be non/less vulnerable during weakenings (say if it was going to happen at a really bad time for people), but for some sort of cost (few days inactivity due to "powering them back up" or something).

Yes to Nexus Worlds; I like Talan's suggestion of bringing back the constructs but keeping immunity for the most important one (chosen by the organization).

As for making conflict more dynamic by allowing the conversion of Demon Lords, Supernals, and Avatars by any - yes, too.

I agree with what has been stated regarding weakenings. Glomdoring has basically experienced the worst of EVERYTHING so it's not exactly like advocates speak out of complete ignorance of consequences. The weakenings in their form prior to deletion were fine essentially, the trade skills useful in most parts, but some not needed (I never saw the tailoring construct cloak used). Many newbies didn't understand why they were waiting for an hour focusing on an inanimate object, but they certainly felt involved and it was viewed as a chance for promotion. There were times when the loss was quote great, but it was a conflict that used aethercraft something that is being pushed, as Talan said. If anything, more people would want to try now.

If reinstated, they required trade skills (the used ones) could perhaps be distributed in aethercraft or the magics, if it is too much to restore the old skills, but I doubt this is the case. The mechanisms against a complete onslaught also seemed to be sound, the ruptures and waiting in aetherspace favoured the ready.

I would say more on other points, but it may not be wise. Simply, I agree with the need to promote flexibility and not hedge organisations into alliances just to profit most from super mobs as they clearly do not endure.

Two quick things-

One- Maybe it's time to reassess the old hardline notions on org oppositions then, so the grief can, at least potentially, be spread across more people instead of dumped on down org.

Two- Weak orgs need discretionaries much more than strong ones, but the power cost hurts them more too. Seren's been operating at a power deficit for a while. Because of how ascendants are raised, and how domoths work, we always wind up with this feedback loop. Strong orgs just get stronger and stronger, and have as much power as they can use, and weak orgs get kicked in the face on both fronts.

Ideally, you want a situation where people feel at least not disinclined to go to weak orgs. Relying entirely on the players to do this, obviously, can wind up with unappealing situations.

I (personally) really doubt we're ever going to allow conversion of city half-formed for the communes and visa-versa.

Really, there's more than 'we don't want to' to it, and there's IC reasons for it. Go find them out if you're so curious, though I'm kind of surprised Chade doesn't really recognize them, as they've occurred before. If you really push things IC, you might see a change - however, as in all things, it might not be what you want it to be!

Having too much positive reinforcement has been a recurring problem since long before domoths and ascendants, though those certainly added to it. But it's one of those topics where the exceptions are imagined to disprove the rule instead of proving it, so it gets dismissed.

Having read those IC reasons, I can safely say that if Nifilhema is capable of tainting Maeve, then they are capable of doing the same to an Avatar, if you want to bring it to that light. It can work both ways.

Adding to this, the reasons you are referring to are the tainted fae/Gorgulu I take it? Which has been repeated since the original event and Magnagora even profits greatly from converting fae when they can. The argument of ethereal and cosmic creating a dangerous mix seems to have been ignored in rp, at least on the city side, unless you're referring to something else.

I can't fathom how IC reasons deny -every- potential point of conflict between cities and communes. Even if the suggested one goes against IC lore, I'm sure another could be found. It seems very bad admin oversight to have neglected to have considered the possibility that players would drive alignments into various different states, and not allow all sides to attack all sides in some form or another.

You act like you can't kill our Demon Lords. You did. Congrats. You attacked us. Its against mechanics to turn them in however. There is a mechanic which I heard you all state on the other threads.

Sue for peace. Ask someone to be your buddy so that way you can turn in their avatars/supernals/demon lords to the other person.

I mean is that the right answer for the other orgs but not for the high and mighty glom?

In case no one wants to be your buddy, but then maybe there is some IC issues wrapped up in that.

The way things the admins have it is so that one org can't steamroll all orgs and crush all flame/drums/light/spikes at one time. It doesn't make sense the whole 'curb raiding/griefing' and then asking to be able to grind everyone into the dust while three orgs scrambles for a limited number of essence.

From what I'm understanding, though (and I could be wrong), isn't it impossible for, say, Mag and Glom to go into their own private war and Celest and Serenwilde to sit and watch? There aren't any ways beyond the basic attacks for either side to really attack the other, without drawing in other orgs to help?

That is what the issue is, if I'm reading the OP right. If there is a worry about one org shutting down all 3 at once, just put in some restriction for how often they can do x type of large-scale conflict quest, or how many orgs who can have drums/flame/etc disabled at a time. Don't remove the possibility to do it at all, as that shows an inflexible push towards certain, static alignments - which the playerbase itself has shown itself not molding to.

This already exists considering that smobs get a grace period of invulnerability for like, 5 days from the time they get raised. I agree with the other posts on the thread though about adding in a converter to each org considering the disparity in the existence of Mag being able to not only convert Supernals for their own city wars but Avatars to Gorgulu as well to propagate any Mag and communal war. Imbalance fixing, plz.

It's not changing, though you can continue to ask for it all you like! Magnagora does run a potential risk, I imagine, by feeding Avatars to Gorgulu. Certainly, the gain is pretty small now.

We've already implemented at least one mechanic for city/commune warfare (HG/XI), and I don't think another one will be coming.

If anyone wants to really press the issue they'll need to take it IC, and work on convincing Night/Crow/Moon/Hart/Demon Lords/Supernals to try to do it.

It's just one of those things you need to press for IC, and not on a forum thread.