Actually I'm not sure it's all that hypocritical. As anyone in customer service can tell you, dealing with ranting customers is just part of the job. Once customers get angry they rarely make much sense and the urge to just point out how stupid they are is pretty strong. But you can't really give into that urge if you are representing a company. If anyone in any company I've ever worked at responded to a customer in the way that was done here, that person would have been fired. Now, we all have our breaking points but we are reminded so very often that this is a business that it's not unreasonable for people to expect business like behavior from the admin. Whether he had any valid points or not does not really matter.

I sincerely doubt this is going to be a problem though. Estarra has rarely ever snapped at people like this even with quite a bit of provocation so I think any heralding of rampant customer abuse is a bit premature.

In terms of conflict, I am uncertain that forum threads are the best way to get a good assessment of which direction to go in. There are plenty of players that don't even read the forums and plenty of others who really should probably spend a bit less time on them so any discussion is skewed in favor of the "forum trolls". If there is a serious interest from the administration on player input into working through conflict then, as has been done for most projects lately, maybe a committee should be formed.

I have a few points I would like to make.

1. Envoys- People are biased, and they see things through their own particular lenses. Still, I will say that most envoys try to look beyond their on bias to work towards some balance within the game. I do personally believe that too many upgrade suggestions are being made to skill-sets that are already viable, while some skill-sets that are less viable are being ignored.

2. Conflict- I believe the state of conflict in Lusternia is a result of many factors, which include Admin decision making, players’ desires, and some players' lack of self-control. What is happening in Lusternia is not unique to this realm. Many games find that the average person prefers regulated combat, to the unregulated form. They only want conflict on their terms, and not to have it forced on them. Then when you take into account that there are some people who desire to force conflict on others no matter if their opponents are proficient enough to give a good fight or not, you can see why the complaints mount and the Admin has to act upon them. Now do I think the Admin overreacted with these changes? Yes, I do feel they have overreacted. Though I also knew that this would happen, because this is the logical result of when the few who like unrestrained conflict continue to bother the many who do not.

Like all of the IRE games, Lusternia is a business. The Admin will do what they think they need to do to make the realm profitable. That means if they feel the conflict level is a bit too high, they will lower it. If the majority of the players actually did desire the amount of conflict that some here posted they desired, then Lusternia would not have received as many conflict dampening changes as it has. Though I also believe that if some of the players themselves would have exhibited some self-control in the amount of conflict they tried to stir up, the realm would not have be in the condition it is in now, conflict wise. So I personally place the blame on both the Administration and we the players. I blame the Administration for overreaching on the changes. I blame part of the player base for being incapable of seeing that their actions were leading to this sorry state of conflict in Lusternia.

Sheesh, my 'insulting' post was meant to be a bit of ironic satire of the posts about the admin. Does no one read between the lines or have a sense of humour!

But it is true that I don't always wear a 'business' hat--and certainly I never had any desire to be a customer service representative! I consider myself foremost a game designer and world builder. I immerse myself within my creation and (perhaps wrongly) feel myself to be part of the gameworld along with the players. I am extremely passionate about Lusternia--it is what my life revolves around after all--and though I have a thick skin, yes, sometimes comments here do wound. Granted it would be more 'professional' to suck it up and respond with customer service platitudes, but then you would never really know me as the passionate person I am!

Meh, I don't know--perhaps I am too informal and open with my feelings. Perhaps I should harden up and only show the cool facade of a business professional.

Well, I'll strive to be nicer and apologize to any who found me insulting.

I was asked to quote this by an established player that wished to remain anonymous.

I'm not going to get up on my high horse here (a high horse named ignorance in my case, as a pretty new player) and make coments about these bard things that I don't understand other than that they're good at killing birdies and moles. But, I am, totally, going to get up on my high horse anyway in order to say, yes, I don't enoy getting pounded by some doof who's character is stronger, better equipped, and who is far more skilled at the game than I am, just because they were bored and wanted to have fun by ruining someone else's good time. Just... no. Please. It's obnoxious in principle.

Now if I was in their town, yelling insults at their gods and culture, or writing "Morgfyre is a fink's patoot" on their front gates, yeah, that's different.

I mean, there's plenty of games out there that encourage the players to kill anyone they can, whenever they can. I find games that do that tend to exist on a constant OOC level as well. Conflict is all well and good, but it really doesn't need to take the form of stomping on people who want no part of it, does it?




As a figure of authority, you're not allowed! Anything you say is immediately imbuded with the seriousness and authoirty of a vengeful god carving commandments into the skulls of hapless orphans. With lightning bolts.

Amaru?

How about you focus on the content and stop guessing? No, it's not Amaru.

Tell Amaru I said 'Hi'

Sometimes I wonder why you post at all. You never really have anything to offer. It's Ariatas, if you must know.

Nah man, it wouldn't be the ol Ammmmm. But Johnny Anon has some points. I remember speaking to a patron about a change of envoy before, and it was just kind of brushed aside. I do think when someone has valid points about change in envoys that they should be looked at to determine what is better for the game.

Hell, I have been an envoy (not for long due to someone telling me we were on strike ) and I know that some can be just like Johnny Anon (in Malicat's post) described.

edit- I like Amaru, he and I would kill each other on sight, but we sometimes chat in tells, and surprisingly enough we get along, and one time Malicat said I was alot like him. Maybe that is why. But never expect to see us holding hands singing koom-bye-yah together though

Someone's in a mood. I'm sorry you can't handle a polite request to pass along a greeting to another player, but that's no reason to be so rude.

Er, I'm being rude? You're a forum troll, Arix. 90% of what you post here has no bearing on the topics and is rarely informative. I posted a quote from someone who wanted some opinions and you start accusing me of posting Amaru's crap here. Anyways, back to the issue. I don't want to waste anyone's time. It's just a bit irritating.

Excuse me while I butcher up the posts that happened after I fell asleep - I'm going to speak on the ones that I feel are relevant to reply to, or just need a simple note of thanks. Granted, I want everybody to know right now: I was not trying to bait Estarra or any administrative official in to replying to me. My behavior has been deemed 'trollish' before - but it's simply because, like Estarra, I feel passionate about something. I have always and will always enjoy the combative scene of Iron Realms Entertainment. If I see potential threats to it, I tend to get up in arms immediately.

Anyways, on with the show:


Sojiro, if the envoy system is nice - why do I have forum replies, or hear numerous envoy complaints all preaching the negatives of the system? My impression at first was simply that it was way too factionalized. My reply and answer to this is to make the system and wiki public. Avaer doesn't intend to do so - this saddens me, because I know he can and I'm sure he won't for any specific or good reason. As a customer, I have a right to see how the game is being changed, what is being suggested, et cetera. After thinking on it, I realize I am much for just making the envoy system a public venue in some way than I am with simply destroying the system altogether. However, you cannot deny that envoy vetoes, factioning in the system, and a general 'I must be on top' mentality in most combatant players of IRE will always hamstring any true attempts to balance in this system. In fact, it will in any player-driven or helped system. The question is what system will be slowed down the least? In my opinion, that system is not what the current envoy system is.



I like what you're saying, Clise.. but the fact remains that there is a certain level of balance that anybody with common sense can grasp. To provide an example, what about the complaint regarding champion helms? I saw logs way back (likely this was fixed) of a Bonecrusher wasting ten power for a near guaranteed kill through hits to the head. This doesn't strike me as very balanced, and I'm sure that no level of artifact tweakery would be able to do that without the inherently gigantic bonus that a champion warrior helm provides. Nobody should have a guaranteed win. Also, do not quote the oft given 'power is an expensive resource!' - it really isn't. With the vast pools of power every city now controls through easily repeatable quests, I highly doubt a city or commune could run out particularly fast if they let their fighters have free reign over how much they take. Sure, you have to wait for it to come back - but will you do, you still have the crushingly powerful blows.. you just have to raze to get through.

I appreciate that you partially grant me support by noting that envoy politics do exist - but I don't entirely agree that they aren't a small or moderate problem. No form of politicing should exist that governs how this game is balanced when so many people play it and have no say.

I would like to see the envoy suggestions put in a somehow public project or forum - or an impartial observer placed to put these things up and keep track of them. While this sounds tedious, it would go far in making numerous customers feel a lot more 'secure' regarding how their investment or their fun is being tampered with. This observer and all posts, if the envoys feel so threatened by being blasted publicly (by me or anybody like me - I won't lie, if I see somebody posting something dumb.. they better have tough skin), can be kept anonymous except to Administrators. In fact, it could be a separate forum account placed in a locked up section of our own Lusternia forums.



Simple answer: My victory or gain is the fact that you lost something.

Long answer: There is no visible victory in Lusternia, Imperian, Aetolia, or Achaea beyond hurting another player of ruining their work in some way. There is no system that says 'you won' - unless you win a fight, kill a mobile, or do both. The fact that I am making you get up, take more gold out of your bursting coffers, re-arrange guards, and figure out how to prevent it is not true conflict - but it is repeatable conflict that shows a clear victory or a clear true damaging attack against a city.

I wish it was different - I was power could be attacked, drained, or destroyed. I wish there was a way to harm cities or communes. But there isn't. There is only raiding, killing, and what you all call 'griefing'.

Winning a revolt is kind of a grey area - I feel that it is a victory, but it is not necessarily a form of true conflict. If two organizations go head to head regularly to control it, I understand. However, the last revolt that occured, I participated in (it was in Paavik) - and I found that there was no real combat. It was me sitting in sanctuary waiting for somebody to make a move or declare they wanted to attack. I offered to help Forren kill some Glomdoring Influence users. and their protectors, but got no response. My impression of revolts and Influence? I think they rock, but the revolts could do with some more player killing or combat. In my opinion, this is not an Administrative failing, but more of a lack of prioritizing what should be done or what could be done. However, I will say that the Avenger system may be crippling these combat attempts.

Discretionary powers should be removed. However, Estarra gave me her true answer on that last night (an all-resounding no. I quote: "discretionary powers are not something I am willing to budge on the issue of") - this was disappointing, since I'm not entirely sure she recognizes how big of a detrimental effect these powers have on attempts to make the only true clear cut victory in any IRE game. If they aren't removed, she and the other Administrative officials need to consider increasing the power for them drastically or diminishing the effects to be bearable to the average healer - so that somebody can put up a fight in them while the defenders get a homeland advantage. Raiding should be hard - but the way the powers work, I think it's entirely impossible or just too hard altogether to be worth the effort.




This strikes me as the total opposite of the 'I'm older than you' argument. Instead, you're saying I haven't played enough to know what I'm talking about. I can admit that this is a slightly closer to valid point - but it isn't entirely valid. I have observed, read about, participated in, and recognized conflict in Lusternia. The subject at hand is 'conflict in Lusternia'.

Guess that means I have a modicum of experience. And if not, I have the experience of Imperian, Aetolia, and Achaea to draw upon to help bolster my argument that in essence, all conflict in all IRE games suffer the same Achilles' Heel. I believe that the players need to recognize and draw a line regarding griefing - and stick to it, educate newbies in it, and allow them to grasp it.

I have said it before: I believe those that visibly hurt the gaming experience to the severity of harming the community, image, or player retention of Lusternia need to be punished. However, I do not hear about 'that damn Forren down the way, he made me quit Lusternia!', or 'Thoros is such a griefer, don't play Lusternia!' (excuse the two names, they were the first that hit my mind - ). It is my firm opinion, especially after last night, that the Administration puts player retention above all else - including the aforementioned enjoyment of these players. This strikes me as a confusing quandary - that would mean that the game attracts a lot of people.. but a lot of them really aren't as happy as they know the game could make them.

However, I am not saying that the Administration does not, however, make people happy. God, no - I find lots of things in Lusternia to be amazingly fun. I'm having a blast just playing with my Transcendent Tahtetso and writing a system. I'm enjoying reading up on how stuff works. I rather enjoy the previously unexplored territory of Planar Conflict. Most of Lusternia intrigues me, interests me, and makes me stick around. Yet again, though - it is not as good as we are all sure Estarra could make it. She and the other Administrative officials could easily listen to us, take our ideas to improve conflict, and do so much with it. However, their close-mindedness of certain subjects ("I am not going to budge on discretionary powers") combined with the fact that certain players have crossed the line and ruined the rest of the game for us happens to lock this subject down. I am yet again simply saying it how I feel it should be said - I do not mean to be insulting. I do not mean to make personal, scathing attacks.

What I understand conflict as is the clashing of players from different organizations over a certain objective, fantasy ideal, or something similar - in a viable and free way. This often is brought around by playerkilling. However, with the advent of various systems that simply shut down playerkilling or are too troublesome to deal with... conflict of this nature is destroyed.

Defending those mobiles is pretty boring. I agree. I did it constantly in Antioch, Stavenn, Kinsarmar, Ithaqua, Ashtan, and Shallam. I found it mildly fun because I knew I would be getting some fighting in for real reasons. I knew that these raids would lead to argumentative player-killing conflict. It would lead to combat. It would allow me to happily use my skills - and win or lose appropriately against the people who attacked my city and home. I do not like raids for their 'ruin everybody else's fun' aspect. I like it for the fact that it incites further conflict beyond the simple 'whoop on guards, kill statues, make people hide for a while'.

I found the raid mildly fun. I found the combat afterwards and retaliation incredibly and overpoweringly fun. I get a thrill from being a combatant in IRE - and I'm sure I'm not the only one.



If they care, why are they so closed-mouthed and closed-minded about so many pertinent subjects such as discretionary powers, the decline of meaningful conflict, and the lack of a reason to fight?

As for your so-called amusement? I don't really care. My general line of reasoning for those two statements is this: people take the 'he griefs me!' issue too far. This issue has been a heavy hand in helping neuter conflict.

I didn't mean to do so, Risch. I was not attempting to troll. However, you're not the only one who has said this about my post. It is sad that the misinterpretation of my post is the only reason why it has gotten so much attention. The fact that somebody has to say 'this guy is talkin' bad! Let's all pay attention to him!' simply to get some issues on the table and debated is sort of sad.

However, am I to assume that you basically agree with some or all of my points?



Estarra responded in a manner that, while I can understand, should have been much less about how I unknowingly flamed and trolled her.. and much more about what I stated. I would appreciate her or any Administrator's public rebuttal to my points - it would be a wonderful little topic. I requested that Estarra hold a poll or vote about proposed changes in this thread - not just mine, but everybody - and it was met with silence in the face of the rest of my statements.




Conflict quests: If you had read my posts, Saran, I explicitly said "those quests didn't work? Make a new batch of them, nix the old ones, and learn from your mistakes". My proposal was that they make quests that visibly harm a city like a sword stroke. These quests you bring up intrigue me, but they sound more like stabbing in to the city viciously and leaving the weapon embedded.

My perception of a conflict quest would be sabotaging their nexus to drain or leak power (which would play in to decreasing the complaint about how power is not a scarce resource anymore). These quests need to exemplify the fact that planar structures and planar areas are central to Lusternia's core concept - and that there is a constant struggle for power, which often comes to physical violence and conflict. Many of these would easily spark some combatant conflict, influence conflict, quest conflict, bashing conflict.. everything. It would be healthy.

Envoys: Most kept their guild informed. That doesn't have much to do with what I mean by the fact that they're corrupt and it's more of a politics mission than a mission to balance the game. Politics and combative balance should never, ever mix - it is my opinion that rendering the entire process public would lessen the possibility for these happenings.



What am I fighting over? Nobody attacks my constructs. Nobody attacks anybodies. They just leave them there like it's some kind of taboo to attempt to kill them off. If people really believe they don't help conflict, why do we build them in the first place? They're a pain in the arse to kill - then suggest nerfs if you are an envoy. Get your envoy to actually take input from you to the Administration.

Constructs, in my opinion, really don't help conflict. They don't spark fights. They provide further benefits that nobody wants to lose.



Ever supportive. Boy do I love you, Shamarah. I'd like it if you could send me an Avenger invite one of these nights, by the way.



I'm glad that you take responsibility for the primary failing of the Envoy system. I hear that the primary reason it is a private process is so that envoys aren't bothered concerning their input. I'm sorry if this sounds crude or anything, but.. if you were man enough to take the job, you should be man enough to accept the responsibility of getting hit for what you suggested. There should be no reason by these group of people should have governance over what is suggested, and we can't even see what they're suggesting, what they're declining, what they aren't bringing up, and so many other things!

Here is my challenge to you: make it public for a month. See what happens.

It isn't satisfying. But it is the only visible victory, and thus the only one that really can provide satisfaction.



I like you. You actually tell me to shut up because I'm new and tell me why. However, Mitbulls, I don't think the fact that the clan exists should immediately sweep away any form of argument. Do you forget why the clan exists? Why does the clan have to exist to endorse conflict that the Administration cannot or will not help generate?



Typical response. We do not organize our own conflict because metaphorically, the safety is stuck on our hunting rifle or pistol. There is no conflict to generate, no combat to engage in, no way to really do it - because of measures the Administration has placed in. If you want to lay the blame entirely on us as players, sure. But please be aware that I agree and attribute some blame to both parties. The Admins are not entirely absolved of guilt here. My attitude is less 'my way is best' and more 'here is how I think things should be, feel free to see past whatever tone I take and enjoy the ideas thoroughly'. I am not the majority. But I seem to be speaking things that most people want to say but fear the backlash involved.



Thank you, Blastron. I'm glad that people are actually stepping up to make an example here and support what I'm saying. I will say it again: I was not trolling. A few people told me 'nice troll' on AIM - and I laughed a little and said 'wow, I really did sort of troll everybody'. It was not my intention to troll, flame, or bait responses. I made the points about how Lusternia is run. I made them in a harsh tone that apparently, people aren't used to hearing. However, I'll point out that Blastron is correct: if I were trolling, I have been sufficiently fed. I am a 'new' player and a customer - I have bought credits, I enjoy the game, I play it. However, my impression of the Administration is tinged with this first reply I got over it.

Estarra didn't flame me so much as try to show me how it feels to have my tone used on myself. I was not particularly hurt, but maybe I'm an odd instance. I will agree that my post held a certain vindicative, alienating tone to it - but I did not intentionally weave my words in that way. I suppose I just have a natural knack for being relatively bitter. I am actually just a tad bit glad that Estarra replied - it said she read this thread, that she saw my ideas.

That she passed them over like trash is disappointing - but it shows that she is watching the forums. I would have killed for Avasyu or Dranor to flame me on Imperian's forums. At least that would have been a response instead of a blank sort of silence that spoke volumes in itself. The words it spoke? "We don't care."


I believe you said I had a good point or three somewhere up there in my last quoted bit from you. That's sort of funny. I'm tempted to do the trolly thing to rub it in your face and make an arrow pointing to it - but I'm, yet again, not a forum troll.



Wrong, but if it were true.. that speaks volumes about my charisma as a poster - or that somewhere in my flair tactics, I am actually unknowingly speaking some truth. I pull this very statement and conclusion from the fact that I have people who aren't no name newbies jumping on the 'oh god slanty words big post' band wagon. I have people supporting me, telling Estarra that my words hold some truth.

Irony and humor, yes. But her effort was wasted, Mitbulls - I would have much preferred she return my fiery words with a civilized tone addressing my issues and complaints. Also, thanks for the idea, I believe I have my new forum signature.



I will agree on this. Like I said, I do not blame her for 'losing her temper'. I felt just a little honored that I got a 'how dare you', actually. Such things count as badges of 'big boy-ness' on the forums.



Your irony and satire amused me and I'll remember that you're an Administrator with emotion and humor. I don't think I could say the same about Dranor or anybody else, really. I read between the lines, but I also think that doing so too much tends to allow people to misunderstand what the subject at hand is and what the words actually mean.

You do not wear a business hat constantly - you should not have to. You do a hard job and you likely deal with legions of people like me every day. However, I felt the need to step up and make my thoughts known. The replies I have gotten, the things people have said, and the support I have gained through my posts generally leads through common sense to show that some of the problems I have touched on are not just seen by me, but by many players.

You do not have to reply with customer service platitudes, but I would gladly listen to any form of argument you would like to make to any of my previously stated points. In fact, it would turn this thread in to a true forum of ideas. Platitudes solve nothing - actions can solve a great many things. If you would but discuss the issues brought up here, it would do more for us than any simpering customer service representative could ever do.

You do not have to be nice, or harden in to a shrewd business professional. I believe all you have to do is listen rather hard to this specific thread and threads like it. You need to listen to all people - the nice ones, the mean ones, and everybody in between.. and form their ideas in to one big vision that you can build a better system or game from.

I did not find you insulting.

While all I did was respond, I believe I put a handful of points forward for all of you to ponder. I am sorry if my words alienated, belittled, or harmed any of you - I didn't actually mean for that to happen. I feel specifically strong about two or three levels and aspects of the IRE gaming experience - and I consider myself a self-proclaimed champion to those causes. I want it to be known that while I may sound like some griping old man with oh so many bones to pick, I really only have a handful when it comes down to it.

I've only been back a month or so and I already like, love, and enjoy Lusternia. I just wish the parts I loved most about IRE would be more manifest in the place I'm growing attached to.

Ugh, ran out of code tags.

The envoys can be replaced with a message to the patron.

What you forget is that "Mr. Loud-Mouth Bias" exists out there, too. With the current system, the violent demands for upgrades or nerfs reach either the detached forums or one individual. It doesn't substantially influence the group.

Yes, there are issues with the current system. A persistent envoy can go veto-happy, which requires getting more agreement than you normally can out of that group. That's not going to be changed by opening it up--if anything, that means you'll get more demands for vetos. A persistent envoy can flood the wiki with ridiculous upgrades every report. This means a lot of vetos! Of course some guild is going to feel jilted in that circumstance. Sometimes, suggestions that we thought would be fine get turned down at the admin level. It's all part of the package.

Anyways, to address your specific concerns, Malicia--Dazzle ended up getting replaced because the Celestine envoy refused to put up a suggestion that was not a substantial upgrade, and I don't believe the Paladin envoy at the time put up any new dazzle effects. Offensive suggestions to Sacraments haven't happened because offensive suggestions to Sacraments don't exist. I'm not sure that I'm warm to the idea of them anyways. I'll say that on the public record. Heretic by itself gives a warrior passive afflictions. The entire inquisition line is there for you. And ablution and lustration don't need their power costs removed. Dropped to 1p, maybe. Upgraded to be in line with a 2p effect, maybe. Use puella.

I really don't see how resorting to personal attacks solves anything.

Arix, is there some reason you enjoy needling Malicia so much? It seems like ever since she started posting again, you are there, making some snide comment for no apparent reason. I don't suppose you could just...stop? It seems silly.

Editted my post a little to fix some common sense typos and some formatting issues with code tags. Thanks for reading it, though I'll understand immediate 'TL;DR!!1!!' replies.

I demand 20 minutes of slavery to make up for the 20 minutes of my life I spent reading it carefully to make sure I wasn't missing any brilliant insight.

I think you and I will get along very well.

I suppose I could stop, since you were polite about it and didn't make an auncalled for personal attack. To be honest, I do try not to be a troll, but some people just make me want to say stuff