So Nadjia's retort is that because Glomdoring cried foul and couldn't get anything changed, then Celest has no ground to stand on?

My argument isn't that all four constructs shouldn't be destroyed in one weakening. I agree with Gregori: with enough forces and no action on the opposing side, it should be probable.

The issue I'm bringing up is that since this "quest" is repeatable, we could see the same scenario come up again without letting us time to catch our breath - the 30 day downtime isn't breathing room - as it's time we're hindered and raising resources to repurchase the construct.

Everything we could've lost in the last two weeks we've lost and most people have given up (left the org, play on their alts or just play another game), which digs us into a bigger hole and penalizes people who are still playing. Other players are arguing it could get worse and I agree. It's not armageddon yet, but I'm trying to avoid that scenario. I'm trying to prevent it from penalizing the smaller number of active players in the org who care.

EDIT: The idea of having diminishing losses/returns allows us this breathing room to have fun for every org. Like I've mentioned before in my previous posts.

The dominant org can still raid and kill Supernals/destroy constructs if they want. But the underdog can still play the game without thinking they've lost it all. Especially if this repeats on a more continuous cycle. I'm not saying this has happened yet, but the fact that it is a possibility raises the question of how we can close this gap.

Yes, the downtime should probably be decreased to around an in-game year. Probably put a 'grace' period too, like on Supernals/Avatars/Demon Lords where they can't be immediately killed after.

The diminishing returns, though, I'm not too keen about. All organizantions have been in the bottom spot; in fact, it came to the point where Celest killed Demon Lords as soon as they were able and even raised shrines on Nil, with Eventru supporting them. Since its conception, Glomdoring has been a bashing ground for Narsrim and friends.

These things pass, as you can see. Just need to harden up and work hard.

I could understand the diminishing returns thing, both from a perspective of giving players a break and with the idea that the constructs take time to "charge up" to their full potentials. It's like how denizens in Achaea were made to be worth more experience the longer they went without being killed, thus encouraging players to vary their hunting grounds more.

Just because everyone has been there, doesn't mean it should be something players have to deal with. I agree that this will pass, but if we raise the floor a bit, then people who are lying on the ground won't feel as crappy and can try to enjoy the game for what it is.

Aren't there already diminishing returns in a sense? That is, to my understanding, when a construct is destroyed, the amount of power lost/added is dependent on how long the construct has been up, no? So that it is in our best interest to let the constructs stay up for a while before trying to destroy them again? Always figured that was how it worked, perhaps I've misread.

It's not something we "have to deal with", it's a part of the game and it's what makes it fun for a lot of us. I WANT to see severe, lasting damage. The more serious the better. I'm just as content when my org is at rock bottom as when it's on top. It's not me getting slapped around, it's my evil little character. I don't personally care if he suceeds, I just want something engaging and interesting to do. I had a lot of fun back when Serenwilde was killing Crow every day. I got to run around looking for shadows and it actually mattered, and use all my sneaky abilities to try and grab colts, and even if I got ganked at least I had something better to do than bash the same areas and make smalltalk over GT. In fact, once the Drums were up and safe against I quickly lost interest after returning to the grind.

No matter how many times your Supernals die, how much does it really affect you? If you're a Celestine it'll suck repacting, but Nexus power is a pretty distant concept to any player that isn't trying to convince people he's worth making a Vernal. If the star falls you can get summoned out of the city, so you'll have to go afk at the nexus world or on a monolith if you don't want to be griefed. Not having constructs or domoth blessings makes bashing less easy, but what's a little more tedium in an already overwhelmingly tedious task? Just be glad they removed racial experience penalties years ago and get on with it.

Power, for me, isn't the issue. Alban gets 50 per day by virtue of being in the Brigade, and I can starlink even more than that.

The insanely annoying, frustrating, make-you-want-to-stab-someone part is trying to gather sands from the Isle of Light to redo a deepbond, when every newbie and their mom is grinding that quest like it's going out of style.

I agree with Shamarah that no organization should lose all constructs in the timespan of a simple hour, regardless of how large and well-prepared the other side is. Which is not to say that the opposing side should not be rewarded for their efforts, just that the reward should not be as large as it is. And while I think that Jozan's idea has some merit, I still think the initial down period of 30 days for 1 hour of work (or even a few hours, if you count the other side's planning) is too much.

The nexus world had been fully melded and forested, with a large group of ground attackers waiting for those souls who would come to defend/focus construct. So, although there were people willing to focus positive on the constructs, they had no way to do so, and there was not a large enough group of defenders to beat off the ground troops.

Krellan stated that he chose this particular nexus weakening because it worked well with his schedule, and he was able to give others advance notice that worked with their schedule too to do this attack. When you are able to pick your attacks like that strategically, yes, you can gather a large force. What is much harder to do is have enough people at EVERY weakening so that you have a large enough ground force/ships ready to go on the off chance that you are raided. And, if you mess up once an hour later you have no constructs for 30 days.

It's been the consensus that the only way Celest had a chance to prevent all constructs from falling given their numbers was to have someone die, go back under grace, and enter the construct. I find the argument that Celest deserved to lose all 4 because they could have used grace to defend to be disingenuous. This is the same side that was complaining just a short time before about sigils being disenchanted under grace. And while the admin dismissed issues over that, there was a lobby effort to make disenchanting sigils a hostile action so that the "abuse" could not happen again. Here, using grace to prevent an organization from gaining tens of thousands of power is a more egregious "abuse" then mere disenchantment, where a new flamed sigil can be immediately dropped, and it never would have occurred to me to do so.

P.S. I recall Celest, Glomdoring, and Mag all being on the bottom, but I don't have any recollection of Serenwilde being there, although it may have been. One of my big concerns, though, with the recent events has been the large power surge Serenwilde has gained. I do not mind the power gains going to Glomdoring, as they have had a long run at the bottom, and it's nice to see them doing well. But, one of the main topics of conversation before the latest event began was the disparity of Vernal Ascendants in the organizations, and with Serenwilde gaining even more power, this seems to make the disparity grow even larger.

If it's the case, I'm also advocating this type of system across all org-conflict quests.



Having fun at someone else's expense is not sustainable. There's nobody to fight. If you haven't noticed, nobody is fighting/defending from Celest. You're just beating on a dead/irresponsive org at this point.

EDIT:



This is also another good reason why there should be diminished returns on these repeatable quests.

The argument is more like "Celest deserved to lose all 4 because they did not try to defend their constructs, 2 orgs were beating on them, -and- the other just planned it out" if anything. You're right though that issues were thrown out and it was made clear that grace cannot be abused, and so, while unfortunate for some at the time, it's something you move on from and remember for the future. I certainly will! Though, given that disenchanting was under grace was made impossible shortly after, I'd like to think that the issues were justified in their own way.

P.S. Some of you sure give up too easily and are quick to roll up into the fetal position when even the slightest pressure is exerted on you. As I write this ( from school ), there's certainly people from Celest raiding Ethereal, aka "fighting".

Here is an idea:

One problem that seems to have been raised is that people are unwilling to fight and defend against an overwealming superior force, knowing they are going to lose large amounts of xp (which frankly takes hours to raise in this game anyway). I would suggest completely removing xp loss on death, aside from when on enemy org territory. Ie. raiders would get xp punished, but bashers in kepheran hives or gorgog caves wouldn't. Also I'd drop xp loss for raiders by about half. That should greatly encourage people to both defend and attack - more fun for all (apart from the whole 30 day fun).

Secondly I'd like to see that throughout the game, it's been a major irk for me. I love to get involved in combat, but nothing is more disheartening to losing hours (seriously) worth of work by a random jumper, huge mob spawns or lag. People who claim there isn't enough combat will find there is more, people who dislike combat now will no longer have to deal with the huge experiance problems it brings. The xp loss is particulary important as it becomes more and more important to be a demigod in combat.

Simply reduce the severe and harsh penalty for failure, more fun all-round, especially for the lower and middling combatents.

I'm not sure why you keep playing the underdog card- that certainly isn't Celest. From what you've said, Celest players have simply chosen to ride the Waaaambulance. Here's a thought- get the Star Council together and offer treaties. Want to save Celest? Good! First step is pulling on some leashes and stop Celestians from raiding. As it is, Talkan and Narsrim are all too happy to go raid, which in turn is going to prompt response attacks. Which in turn is going to bring more Celestian tears. The constructs, while highly useful, are hardly necessary. Don't want to worry over defending them? Great. Don't build them until you can. Or don't invest 1,000 credits in one guy who when the chips are down, didn't do a thing to defend them.

I can understand Celest being irked over the event, but the event is over. I'd say it's time to roll up your sleeves and worry over damage control- stop raiding if you don't want raids in return, work on relations with the communes, deciding on whether or not to rebuild the constructs for now, etc.

Back before Glom came out, Seren got stomped by the Mags of old. Daevos, Kaervas, Ixion, etc. etc.


I miss old Mag. Everyone's done gone and gotten soft.

It's a good concept and I'm open to that idea, but just know that it goes both ways. Raids may happen more frequently if the penalties are less harsh for raiders. If you die twice as much with half the XP loss, you'll just end up where you were before.


I'm broadening the discussion beyond Celest, why do you keep hanging on Celest as the underdog? I did not suggest a buff to Supernals/Celest Nexus World. I am suggesting a revamp of rewards/penalties to all org-related quests.


We haven't raided since the Hai'gloh ended. Since when did anybody respect that as a standard for not raiding?



EDIT: I'm not trying to get hung up on communes vs. cities. Staying on topic is that when orgs try to rebuild, they get torn down faster than they can rebuild. Instead of this kind of setup, I'm suggesting they get less of a penalty for each subsequent loss, so they have a chance to rebuild and control the damage. You can't control the damage if the loser has to deal with significant losses/costs of rebuilding but with the lack of manpower to do it. It's a vicious cycle and my proposal aims to break that.

Ah, but I'm suggesting no xp loss for defenders. The only people to lose xp will be the attackers on enemy 'org' territory, and that will be reduce by say..half maybe

Interesting idea. Of course, what do you define as defending? Magnagora comes to Celestia to help their allies. Would there be a formal option for city leaders to add orgs as allies?

Would this expand to defending God Realms?

If you follow my previous posts as I've written, the only people to lose xp will be attackers (those enemied to the defending org). So if say....Thoros raids etherseren and dies he will lose xp. Anyone not enemied to the org will not lose xp on death. That includes Serens, any unenemied gloms who show up etc. , everyone except enemies to the org. This wouldn't need a seperate mechanism to designate defenders, just place a requirement to enemy quickly any new combatents who show up. (Though I can see the risks here, enemy status being banded about lightly).

I would like to see this expanded to the entire game to be honest.

Edit: I'm proposing we scrap xp loss on death, with the exception of raiders in enemy org territory

Ummm, lets not remove experience loss entirely, that's super lame. And no loss during bashing, the hell?? Sure it sucks when you lag and get killed, but then there's no longer a risk to bashing!

As you are writing this saying you are not raiding, Veyrzhul, Narsrim, Munsia and Thoros are running through Faethorn causing trouble, that's what Urazial is refering to

I have no problem with it, I think it's fun, even if I die a bunch

LOL, okay. Yea, I'm not online. Anyways, my latter statement still applies. Since when has not raiding stopped anybody from raiding an org?