We've been pondering what to do when a down-and-out organization gets crushed under the force of an opposing organization. No one wants to be in a downtrodden organization that continually gets stomped down, so players in that organization leave or don't come around as much. The more players leave, the more downtrodden the organization becomes. The more downtrodden an organization is, the more easy it is to stomp down. Thus, the cycle goes on.

Here's some ideas we've been kicking around:

If the shields fall in a commune or city, the avatars of that commune or city (i.e., demon lords, supernals, nature avatars) become invincible for one year. Further, if the main feature of the commune or city fall (i.e., Star, Necromentate, Crow, Hart), the avatars also become invincible for one year (and for yet another year when the shield raises). This would hopefully give more time and breathing space for organizations to get back on their feet when the chips are down.

Another idea was a city or commune could capitulate in some manner and 'pay off' an aggressor, which would make their avatars invincible for some period.

Anyway, nothing is decided. Right now, we're looking for feedback and please feel free to offer alternate ideas!

It unfortunately just doesn't make any sense at all to me... why would a bunch of things become unkillable when defenses fall? Is there some sort of... reason why that would happen?

Maybe I'm just not reading it right.

Well, it stops the big stuff from happening quite as frequently-- but what about constant smaller raids / jumping / etc? Which are every bit as much a contributing factor to this issue, and harder to address.

Note that only half of the complained issue is the Demon Lords falling-- a lot of the further frustration comes from all the other raiding that's happening even after the DLs are down.

I like the capitulation idea better. Someone comes along and smashes you (as in your org), you have the option of officially admitting defeat (an option because some orgs might want to leave it as a last resort sort of thing), said admission costs you (as in your treasury and nexus) a chunk of gold and power which goes to the victorious org. But then, all your loyal mobs are invincible for a year (which gives you time to recover your losses and hopefully train up some) because the gold and power you gave was basically like protection money you'd pay the mob so they don't come and burn your restaurant down.

Off-prime avenger, clearly.

(Joking)


(No really don't do it because that would suck)

... you should remove this post before it's read.

(Too late! It's quoted.)

I think we're on the right track. Right now, conflict is an endless cycle, because the way it is set up, the conflict is its own repeating end. There's no "winning". It's a cycle, and the cycle will be repeated for as long as the aggressor can keep it up.

The payoff method interests me. It's players though and "RP" that might prevent this from working. For example, take the current conflict-- Mag might realize that they can't win, and offer to surrender to New Celest to stop the fighting. This in itself is an excellent RP oppurtunity that could really enrich the game. Unfortunately, the "RP" of "You're evil and we must kill you" will get in the way and the conflict will continue. The only way to get around that would be to code it, but then I feel players will think they are being cheated if they are forced to stop the conflict.

I don't think making the smobs invincible will solve anything either. And I agree, it doesn't make much sense.

Perhaps another idea: every time a smob is killed in a certain timeframe, it offers less and less reward and less and less penalty. Say this is every IG year: the first time a Demon Lord is killed, it gives 1000 power. The second time it only gives 500. The third time 100, and every time after that 0. Essentially, it becomes more trouble than it is worth to kill the smob. Likewise, the first time a Demon Lord goes down, Nihilists lose their deep bonds. The second time, they keep a weaker bond and can use their symbols but at reduced power. The third time, the reduction is not as much, and every time after that they still have their bond.

Not sure if it's a good idea, just throwing things out there.

They become invincible for a longer period when the defenses are RAISED, not when they fall.

The problem as we see it with capitulation is that the RP of some (all?) orgs may prevent them from ever capitulating. Would Celest ever bow down to Magnagora? Vice versa? What about Serenwilde capitulating to Glomdoring? Or would they rather wither and die?

Call it treason! The underbelly decides it had enough and throws a riot and capitulates.

In all honesty, the issue is a much bigger thing than one org stomping another org. It is the dichotomy of Lusternia. On one side you have "good" on the other side you have "bad". Further punctuated by the fact that viewing it from another perspective you have on one side alchemy and the other side enchantments.

The good side will gravitate towards each other while the bad side will also gravitate towards each other. Alchemy and enchantments push this necessity even further. Now, we have cases where, for brief periods, the waters were clouded on the alchemy side flowing back and forth between good and bad, but when you cut it into city and commune the basic structure is the same, there is 1 good city and 1 good commune and 1 bad city and 1 bad commune.

So you end up with 1 city + 1 commune against 1 city + 1 commune and the tendency again reverts to the classic "good" vs "bad" and the roles almost never change. This can be proved by looking at the four years of Lusternia history and seeing that with the exception of very short periods of time, the "alliances' have never shifted. They can't shift for very long due to the colourful and wonderful history provided to us. They also cannot break for very long due to the reliances on certain needed items.

This means when one Org gets stronger, it is actually both the Orgs in the pairing getting stronger. When one org gets weaker, both Orgs in the pairing get weaker. So you end up with 2 groups of people who are feeling downtrodden and leaving the game.

What needs to happen is a reason, and this will probably mean a complete ideological change in some ways, for those hard set alliances to not be needed. There needs to be a reason that Serenwilde and Glomdoring would help each other against Celest and/or Magnagora. Or even a reason that Celest and Magnagora would help each other against Serenwilde and/or Glomodring. There needs to not be a forced reliance on goods that create this same recurring problem we have seen for four years.

Hard coding anti-grief mechanics (and this is the second time now) every time Orgs are being abused is a bandaid to a much larger problem. Taking the current setup as an example, assuming that Serenwilde and Celest go to war, Celest will end up in need of alchemy, Serenwilde in need of enchantments. They will gravitate towards the places they can get them, short term alliances will form and the dog pile cycle will begin anew. The war will end, the alliances will slowly filter back to their "proper" alignment and we will be back to this place once more.

The bandaid may stop one symptom of the problem, but it doesn't deal with the problem in and of itself.

I believe this idea will help alleviate the stress, the one with the time of invincibility.

But this won't do much more than prevent the targets in question from being raided every six days, and just make it twelve. It will provide good time for recovery though, and that's what matters here. Mag barely got more than 10k power in the past two weeks if it was lucky.

Personally: Delete Celest/Narsrim

Of course they wouldn't, otherwise it would have been roleplayed without a mechanic by now. It's one of the problems created by having every org possess a solid foundation for a "we're better than everyone else and all their predecessors too" attitude.

Well, true I suppose. I guess I tend to underestimate the pride factor, which is what I think would keep folks from just admitting defeat. They'd all be stubborn and 'never say die' and try to keep fighting even though they're being crushed and stuff about it instead of seeing the defeat as a temporary setback and a chance to regroup.

I mean, sometimes defeat happens. In all the RL wars, both sides believed they were right and that God was on their side and that they couldn't be defeated. But in most cases one of them was always wrong. Why should it be any different ICly?

Maybe make it optional, unless their stuff falls multiple times within a certain period? Like if their necromentate, star, drums, flame, avatars, supernals, aspects, lords, whatever, fall more than twice in one year, capitulation is automatic? So, leaders would have the choice of surrendering on their own terms basically and having less in the way of losses, or having it forced on them and losing more BUT having the potential to not have to do it at all?

While I like the capitulation and the pay off idea, Estarra is right. It's highly unlikely to happen... save for cases which are like the one that Chade mentioned in the other thread. Org is left without statues and guards, there is an enemy meld all through their city/forest and the place becomes known as an outpost of org X, instead of home of org Y.

As a matter of fact, I sort of like what The Manly Man aka Everiine wrote. Make the damage done to the organization decrease. Full damage first time, half damage the second time if it happens less than an IG year afterwards, no damage if it repeats for the third time over a period of 2.5 - 3 IG years and no damage and temporary protection the time after that. Or something along those lines.

This, however, will kill even more large scale conflict, at least what's left from it... I haven't been here since day one, but it seems that with each RL years things get softened up. Large conflict quests already hold now effect. Now the last option to dent an opposing org is being taken away.

Although, as it was pointed out already, people will find other ways. You take this away and more people will bother with weakenings and tear down constructs... that of course could lead to not building them (like guards are no longer summoned thanks to certain someones).

So yeah, just some thoughts really, without any real suggestions.
Save for what Desi said... NOT!

Problem is, being forced to surrender is kinda considered treason in both Celest and Magnagora.

In Celest, it means you have to agree that the Taint is stronger if Magnagora wins, thus, you are a heretic.
In Magnagora, it's a sign of weakness and you will be removed.

People are not going to give in simply because it's hard coded into citymembers. The Light shall never fail. The Weak are removed, you're not weak are you?

Even in Aetolia where we didn't have nearly as solid RP reasons never to surrender, no one ever did. I think it's even less likely here. But don't give up the idea because if you can find a way to make it work it's the best solution. An official surrender is one of the few things that can break the cycle Everiine spoke of, that conflict tends to only ever escalate (and the only thing that breaks the increasing momentum is being distracted by something like an event).

I'd first like to say thank you, Estarra, for looking into this. I realize that technically, you don't have to. And I really can't see why you should.


I'm sure that if the roles were reversed, I would deny that anything would need to take place/get fixed. Be that as it may, and as scary as this is, I am in agreement with Gregori. The ideas you have are quite interesting, but merely a bandaid.

If there were some sort of "Magnagora + Serenwilde have to get together to fix this" event, or the other way around, I think it would go a bit better towards the objective. I mean, no offense, but the Raziela event made it easier for Seren and Celest to get along. She can't take fae any more, but Gorgulu can? It's minor, but minor things add up.

Just above all, don't "force" griefing to stop. I'm not looking for griefing to stop, merely make it to where one org can't ride roughshod over another. Case in point: Serenwilde/Celest's party a week or so ago, where they ran around Magnagora playing pattycake with the novices and tearing stuff up.

Gregori's post is very insightful. Reasons for Serenwilde and Glomdoring to ally would be interesting and add depth. Saving Faethorn might be an example.

People surrender in RL when the alternative is to lose everything: their communities, their family, their lives. We don't have that situation in Lusternia, so people aren't going to surrender.

We've tried this before and were accused of 'forcing' RP that players didn't want....