Admins do not have to consider anything said IG to be 'OOC'. Sometimes they do take the (( )) into consideration, other times they don't. Up to them.

^^What he said.

Actually, anything done in an IC medium is considered IC technically, even if all the parties involved agree it isn't. A lot of folks have been burned by assuming their OOC comments will stay OOC.

So they tell you you may use TELLS to speak OOCly, in every HELP FILE you read about it, yet what -they've- written means absolute just because one of them wants to bring OOC to IC?

There need to be designated OOC channels. Having to constantly worry if people are going to take your OCC talk IC because it's technically legal is really stupid.

Obviously people do not stay IC all the time, and obviously they aren't expected to. The rules need to reflect that.

Holy crap, me and Celina are agreeing on something! But yes, people try to make OOC clans and designate it to being OOC, but wait!? Someone comes in and ruins it!

Well, usually most people respect OOC stuff. But sometimes not. And when they don't, there's no way to really say, "They can't do that!" cause technically there is no OOC. Plus, it might just be hard to tell if two folks are speaking OOCly... did you mark the tells in any way? When I have to use OOC tells, I'm always really careful to put them like ((this)) so the person I'm talking to knows for certain that these are jsut regular tells.

Yiro bin Laden - Hijacker of this thread

Here's a sample proposal of how my idea, a couple of posts ago, might play out:

1) Org A's construct goes down - normal power loss to Org A/normal power gain to Org B
2) Normal timer begins counting till it can be rebuilt (30 days)
3) 30 days pass and the construct is rebuilt for normal costs.
4) A new timer is started for 30 days, if construct is again destroyed within this timer then the power loss/gain is halved. (i.e. construct did not have time to fully recharge from its nascent state). Let's call this: threat level yellow.
5) Construct is destroyed again between this time.
6) Construct can be rebuilt sooner (15 days)
7) 15 days pass and the construct is rebuilt for half the cost.
8) Again a timer is set but for 15 days to allow the construct to "fully recharge". During this period if it is destroyed again, the loss/gain is again minimized to another level. However, if it is not destroyed, it reverts back to "threat level yellow", and the timer is reset to 30 days. If it is not destroyed within that 30 days, it'll revert back to normal status.
9) 45 days passes and it's back to status quo

Similar things can be applied to other org conflict quests.

The pros:
1) It allows underdog orgs to recuperate from a beating, while still giving the winning side the rewards and the pleasure of burning things to the ground.
2) It lessens the impact of consistently poor turnout from an organization.
3) No admin policing necessary
4) Allows non-combatants a little less shame for not being able to help out, as eventually the losses from these big raids will be decreased to manageable amounts if it continues for a long period of time.


The cons:
1) Coding time necessary
2) May be perceived as coddling from the harsh realities of this online game
3) A Celestian is proposing this idea (kidding)

Please discuss.

I like the proposal, its good and well thought out. I was merely speaking out against capping how many ships can nuke an Org's construct at once.

Viewing this from the outside (Hey, haven't played lusty for 2 weeks or so, at least not seriously) I have simple points to make

+ Celest has admittedly been on the losing side of events lately.
+ Constructs are not required...but if you want to tie in a collegium quest to them, then they ARE required (See Nightaltar/Moonthingie)
+ Serenwilde has consistently been on top in fights. They seem to have been unaffected by the ebb and flow of power.
+ The Ebb and Flow of power is a poor excuse. Just because one organization was on the bottom a month ago and they're on top now doesn't mean that their ideas are invalid, nor does it mean that when they lose power again you can just say "Didn't stop you a month ago" It does not matter whether you are tall or small. When there is an issue, the argument "Well it's always been that way" does not refute the issue, it merely means that the issue is now coming to light. Things change

Case and point. Just because Glomdoring has had to deal with hardship, and now Celest does, doesn't mean that it's right that either organization is steamrolled. This is something that should never happen.

What will never happen is for the admin to try and referee and/or distinguish who said what in what OOC medium or learned it IC. Thus, if you tell someone something in ANY medium (forums, emails, IMs, so-called OOC clans), do not expect the admin to reprimand that person if what was said is then taken IC.

Yes, in a perfect world, we would all keep OOC/IC distinguished but this is not a perfect world and people are people and are always looking for an edge. So, here's an idea, just don't blab anything you want to keep IC private in any OOC medium whatsoever. Thus, it won't matter if a channel is OOC or IC or whatever.

When in doubt, WWHD.

What would House do?

House would realize that people are idiots/people lie, and not to trust people to keep anything "OOC" like it should be.

Split the Yiro thread somewhere else please. Or just end it...it's not productive at all.

EDIT: Not ranting at you specifically, but it has nothing to do with the current thread at all...not even remotely.

Honestly, I don't see much that needs to be changed. Serendoring destroying four constructs was barely achieved within the one hour time limit. Celest could've stopped it by putting up some semblance of a fight. Instead, they chose to walk in while graced, emote mockingly, and then leave. The same thing was done during the minor weakening as well.

The only thing I may agree with is only one Colossus attacking a Construct at a time.

Otherwise, apathy should not be used as a reasoning for "balancing the game".

Edit: Also, for the naysayers about "abusing grace" to get into your Construct hull. Just have TELEPORT HULL then. There. No Grace abuse. No excuses.

Apathy is not the reason for balancing the game. Apathy is the result of being overpowered in several raids. And it's a continuing spiral downward with really little hope of coming back anytime soon. People aren't going to participate in what they deem a losing battle.

The solution I proposed is designed to stem the losses, so people can regain confidence in the city and participate again.

Seriously? Each of my posts has mentioned the constructs or the weakening that just took place, with other material added, because someone decided to call me on it, in which, had nothing to do with the thread. So yeah, then my last post AGREED that your proposal was good, reread?

Meh, there should be no limits placed on who can do what in the weakening, because it costs resources to do it all, or at least effectively.

Request Denied.

Like I said, as long as it's relevant to some extent, I don't mind it being in my thread!

I don't know how anyone can honestly argue with a straight face that FOUR constructs being destroyed in a single major weakening is even remotely justified. Sometimes you just don't have the people logged in to defend them. If you just have zero combatants on during a major weakening, is that your fault? No - maybe none of them could be logged on or maybe they didn't know about it or maybe they just didn't feel like it. I can see losing maybe ONE construct in an undefended weakening as justified, but losing four constructs just because you got unlucky and didn't happen to have the people online to defend them is ridiculous and I don't understand how anyone who is even thinking at all can seriously support that. A city should not lose 100k power and all construct benefits just because the enemies happened to have a lot of people online and they happened to have nobody.

What if destroying one construct fully healed all the others and made them invulnerable for the rest of the weakening (it sacrifices its energy for the defense of the nexus world in its last moments)? I think that would be a good solution.

To defend my argument above by way of example, let's say Serenwilde has a major weakening and nobody is logged on; Gregori is at work and Xiel is busy with school and Alianna is out being a party animal and Nejii is asleep and Sarrasri forgot about the weakening and is playing TF2 instead and Vathael didn't feel like logging on, etc etc. Meanwhile, Celest has no lives and was able to muster a ground force of 20 raiders along with 10 bombarding aetherships. Serenwilde loses all of its constructs and has absolutely no real way of stopping Celest from doing anything, because nobody is logged on. Is this fair?

Yes

Each organization gets Astrologers for a reason, and if people want to work -that- hard, they should be able to. Limiting what can be done is more discouraging than anything.