As far as nexus worlds go - maybe hold off scrapping them all together while you're also looking at aetherspace in general? It seems to me like these two things are at least nominally linked.

Regarding the penalties, I have pm'd you a while ago, more or less in agreement with those who have said already that the recovery process should not be as tedious. It's generally not the people who cause this damage that end up doing the clean up for them, so yes, by all means, decrease these.

I'm really not sure how to comment on this. I'm truly in awe, and in an effort to be as constructive as possible, I'm left to wonder: Do you honestly feel the playing field between Cosmic and Ethereal is anywhere near level? I realize you put forth a sincere effort to address this problem, but at the same time, I'm still shocked that the minor adjustments made constitute "huge" change.

+ Mages have to kill Maeve to meld Ethereal. There is no such requirement to meld Cosmic. While you did address the issue, it should be obvious that this is still a huge, innate advantage for Communes.

+ Ethereal can have saplings planted that last until chopped. There is no equivalent of this on Cosmic. It takes me 2 chops with my max damage waraxe to down a sapling (more for a growing tree). Every single time I raid, I have to deal with this annoyance, and it's extreme. They are better than terrain, they last longer, and they take longer to remove. A lovely Commune advantage.

+ Liveforest is hands down better than Ripple. Nexus Surge is hands down better than nothing. Another Commune advantage.

+ While Ladies/Daughters no longer group up at the Avatars, they still exist in mass number around them. There is no such equivalent for Supernals. Another Commune advantage.

+ Limbo exits directly into Celestia/Nil and does not directly exit directly into Ethereal Serenwilde/Glomdoring.


=====+=====

I'm sorry, but can you name me some advantages that Cosmic has over Ethereal? In about 30 seconds, I've been able to list several for Ethereal. No single advantage is game breaking, but they are all synergistic. I think if you want to address the problem, you should address it with a mindset to "even" it out not punch holes or add limitations to advantages when the opposing party has nothing of the sort. Even with these minor changes, you've only been addressing the tip of the iceberg.

Cosmic Planes are simply put mechanically not on par with the Ethereal Plane. Not at all. I really wish you'd address actual problems instead of trying to maintain the status quo by introducing knee jerk fixes.

Apologies in advance if my post is short (typing from my phone) or you find it unhelpful (Richter isn't exactly a fighter), but here's my two cents.

Lusternia is a game. Think about other, popular games. People like Monopoly, right? Well, most people (except a certain type) dislike that you have to win by beating your opponent into submission for four hours. Take a game like Settlers of Catan. You win by being the best, not by obliterating the other side. I think that's more fun.

Anyway, read about it in the recent issue of Wired. I think we could do well to keep such things in mind.

It will take more than just that, yes (likely a lot more), but I really don't think it is so unrecoverable that the entire system should just be ditched. At least, not unless you are giving us other things to do for some forms of conflict. But look at all the forms you have so far-- almost everything is either low-scale or high-scale.
High: Supernals/Avatars/DLs/Constructs, if you lose these fights you have a large penalty.
Low: Angels/Demons/Ladies/Daughters/Aspects/Lords/Guards.

The only "middle" really is Domoths, which is entirely controlled by the people who own the Domoth. If you're not one of them, you don't really have any middle-of-the-road conflict. You can go be a nuisance with a small group and just off people for no real purpose, or you can try to put together a big raid, but you can't accomplish anything beneficial for your org via combat.

I still think you need more conflict that is divorced from organizations. Make Nil/Celestia/EthForests more fortress-y. You go to them with a huge raid group (think: End of Game raids on MMORPGs). You don't go raiding with 1-2 people, though you might try to explore / prepare with one. It would just be very dangerous to do so. And then have more things that one can do with smaller groups (with the potential for fighting), that people can decide to do when they want a fight. That does not really hurt any other organization much (maybe some minor RP inconveniences, a very tiny power loss, whatever) with some reward for the winner. That can change hands frequently.

Note: Domoths do not really work the way I am suggesting, because domoths tend to be "locked" once first claimed. They rarely change hands until they flux, just because of how they're set up.

I won't lie, I defended Tide Lords. Thoros defended Earth Lords. People just don't bitch about them dying, is that what you people are looking for? To be able to cause bitching or forum posts by killing NPC's?

Before I got eat dinner, I'd like to add:

I wish game balance and mechanics in Lusternia were given as much consideration as design. I really think this tends to be the basis for most bitching in conflict. In an effort to make everything "special," one side is usually screwed over because their setup is just mechanically inferior to another. If more emphasis was placed on molding the design around balanced mechanics than attempting to back pedal and make balance fit unique design, I for one would be much happier.

Each has it's pros and cons, and I'm not exactly a fan of cookie cutter mechanics, but when a sacrifice has to be made, it shouldn't be mechanical balance.

I have to agree with others that you shouldn't get rid of the nexus world system, its penalties, and its benefits. Again, there are quite a few changes you can make to it to make it more balanced, however, I don't think it was as hopeless a concept (as say...ruptures) as you think it is.

I would agree that we need more middle of the road kind of conflict like domoths, though. Those are fun. I'd agree with changing pacting/fae as well. If you absolutely have to tie in a "penalty" make symbols/fae more costly to summon or something.

I think I understand the dynamic you were hoping for. If it is for a 4 way org brawl, that's what I've always wanted. Honestly, what I see as the problem is alliances. This started with separation of trade skills forcing neccessities as well as pinning specific organization enemies against one another by default. It has been perpetuated by constant world wide events that have encouraged specific sides to team up as well.

But now, enchanting and alchemy has been opened up all around. If you want truly dynamic conflict over the 2 orgs vs 2 orgs conflict, the next world event needs to change that. Each org needs to have their own goals and objectives, their own incentives to participate or not. Unfortunately, with the history that Lusternia has established, the norm is that each org seems to have a single never changing enemy. So, it would likely be hard to maintain such a dynamic outside of world events.

Addressing the current concerns, Synl has brought up an idea that I find intriguing and I would like to add to it. I actually would not be against eliminating all power draining conflict quests. However, they would need to keep the benefit of adding power to an organization. I cannot speak for everyone, but personally, I raid Supernals, Avatars, Demon Lords, and constructs to GAIN power or gold. The primary goal is gaining. Hurting the other org is a more like a tacked on perk that I could care less about. As long as the potential to benefit remains, I believe that these conflict quests will still work with or without consequences.

It would be interesting to see all the power draining effects, lost ability usage and negative consequences gone and replaced with blessings for an organization. Though, at some point, experience blessings become unneeded. It gets to a point where you never seriously need to bash again for any reason, especially since domoths are half the time, free gold and experience, which is enough to sustain combat upkeep and equipment costs as well as basic phoenixing costs.

I mean, it could be as simple as making Demon Lords and Supernals not have any consequences for dying and the only benefit to kill them would be so that they drop 50000 gold a piece. With squad unity and distribution, people will still be willing to raid for personal benefits. Not everything has to be an organizational benefit.

So far, I have voted for 2, but if consequences reduced/eliminated also includes increased incentives/benefits, I am more than willing to change my vote to 1.

Also, I stand by this idea I brought up awhile back still . I feel that all defenders should auto conglut on their home planes. Mag's on Nil/Earth, Celestians on Celestia/Water.

What do I think?

Well I think for one Optional conflict should be just that options. Everyone is swinging to the people who say, I play for conflict. Well thats good but why do you feel like conflict is only conflict when you are forcing people who don't play for conflict to fight against you?

I would like to see some things made optional, I think removing Nexusworld conflict is a good thing, as I have not yet gone through and had fun a single time while apart of it. It is either AFk channeling or watching as I can't really do anything and my constructs are destroyed. I believe they are good as just a bashing ground for lowbies.

I think the meh I don't really care is a good thing to have in conflict. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CARE ABOUT A GAME. You also should not be stopped from playing the game just because your construct your domoths your demonlords etc are destroyed.

That aside I don't think rewards should be taken out of the game totally, what I do think though Is that the rewards you get, or lose should never affect combat itself. I think any of the rewards that you get that "buff" your character should be removed. Let the rewards be really wanted, yet still optional.

My short answer is no.

Though on the flipside, I think losing pacts because of supernal/demon lord deaths is a bit over the line, and should be done away with.

The state of things is just the natural consequences of choices that were made.

We have plenty of demis who bashed up there, and we have some who took a ride on the demigod slip and slide. The whole game is balanced around them, there are even activities for only this few to do, yet they play so much that they run out of said things, and thus have only one thing remaining to them.

Go aether-godzilla on another org, usually running it down like a gerbil on a highway, or go aether-godzilla on some poor non-demi who usually winds up losing a few hours of their own work to fuel a 2 minute adrenaline rush for random demi whilst they prove that they are awesome at beating someone at something they really didn't have any interest in doing in the first place. Like, beating a blind person who freaking hates checkers at checkers.

These folk often end up clotting together to the extent that a great deal of organizational conflict is nearly a foregone conclusion.

This is "high end combat". (Or at least an excessively cynical description of many instances of said combat).

If we want to reduce/remove penalities for being the current org on the wrong side of the strongest demi-clot, honestly, I'm all for it. If people are really and honestly all about the challenge of the fight, then whether or not the other side is beaten like a red-headed step child for losing should be at best, tertiary. Then again, I never understood why penalties for dying seem so necessary to some people. To me this is all the same boat- org penalities for losing, xp-time loss for dying. Always seemed stupid and pointless to me, save for the freaks who can only win in a zero-sum game when someone else loses equally as much.

It's true, dying doesn't hurt me and essence loss doesn't bother me. I hate redeffing, but I can live with it. I would still raid and fight the same with with or without experience loss as dying itself has it's own meaning to me and I feel more successful I have not died. If two raids are completely equal in regards to success, but on one, I have not died and the other I have, I would always prefer not to die, even if I had used more essence in doing so (by divine firing, zapping)

I would like to throw my name in with the "please don't take away my conflict" crowd. I enjoy the way conflict is set up now, even when I'm on the losing side. If I didn't, I probably wouldn't have made another Glomdoring character after I dropped my first one from a few years back.

I do think that lessening the amount of time it takes to rebuild a construct would be good, but I wouldn't be very happy to see constructs completely scrapped. Other than that, I like how things are right now.

Make it so the winner has a harder time winning as they keep on winning. Make the loser have a harder time losing as they keep on losing.

I agree with this, and I think it would be very worthwhile.

The first part of this statement is a really good point. In order for conflict systems to be effective and fun, they need to be easily understood by everyone - something you can jump into and get started the very first time you try it. If you're a new player interested in PvP, and a nexus event happens...what's going on? How do you win? What is a construct, how do you operate one? Even I don't have any clue how to operate one, and I've been playing for a while. And, if the offensive team gets there early, and get a meld/defense going, it can be extremely hard to break through that.

I love the concept of the system, I believe there is a way to balance the equations involved to make it fair and fun. The problem is that text games are hard enough already, especially one with a combat system as deep and complex as Lusternia's.

I believe that conflict mechanisms are an essential and needed part of the game. I mostly play for the PvP aspect and conflict. What we need are environments that facilitate this for the people who really want to do it, but isn't too harmful for the people that don't, ie making guardians lose their bonds when a supernal dies.

I feel like Lusternia needs a 'battlefield' that is easy to get to, where the conflict is easy to understand. I think the reason you see cosmic raids so often is because the principle is clear cut. Everyone knows why you're fighting, and where you're fighting, but it's not as simple to get to as it should be (you need an ability to survive there).

I think that, in order to make the nexus system more dynamic, there needs to be more personal rewards for participating in it - even if you lose. Consider that a nexus world, during a weakening, gets marked as a 'fight zone', or whatever the heck you want to call it. During that type period, if -anyone- in your organization kills someone in the other, you get experience and karma. If that person was in your guild, you get even more experience and karma.

Also, make it so that if you die in a fight zone, you lose less experience, even if you don't have conglutinate - it needs to be so that participating will always get you -something-. The risk vs reward in all forms of Lusternia pvp is seriously out of whack. There is a much better chance you will lose more than you gain any time you participate in PvP.

You could also make it so that dying in a nexus world during a weakening doesn't strip defenses - but if you do that you would probably have to give the offense an easier way to get back, or a faster way to bring down a construct, since the defense will constantly be pouring back in.

Lusternia has a lot of venus for rewarding a player - esteem, karma, xp, gold. I suggest you explore those venues to make PvP a more rewarding experience, even if you lose the war, everyone should feel like they gained something in the battle. Just participating should progress your character in some distinguishable, quantifiable way.


edit: Although I said that these changes to conflict should be made to nexus worlds and weakenings, I actually meant that they should apply to Lusternia as a whole. Conflict between cities and communes, cities and cities, and communes and communes. There should be designated areas with a certain theme for victory (ie, taking down a construct), but which provides individual rewards for the people participating.

Yes.

Let me also re-affirm that I HATE redeffing. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE.

If there was a potion that let you keep all your defenses if you prayed/phoenixed on that death at the cost of tripling exp/essence loss, I would use it. Every damn time.

A "four way brawl" may be a worthy ideal, but it's not really a practical one, save perhaps for highly structured events.

Lets take a hypothetical world, with four fictional cities, called Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and Houston.

One day, LA decides that it wants Detroit's water, and so sends an army of Ur'vironmentalist zealots to beat the crap out of Detroit's Holy Automotals with a Psuedo-science bombardment. Unfortunately for Detroit, it lost most of it's defenses when New York initiated a negative penalty by failing at a world event that resulted in large scale fallout with the implosion of the Megalith of Credit. As a result, LA handily destroys two out of three Automotals while no defense can really be raised.

Houston and New York aren't directly impacted by this, but as LA is particularly strong lately, and Detroit rather weak, they each have one of three choices. Attack Detroit, Attack LA, or do nothing. If they attack LA, they don't really benefit, and angering the strong LA isn't a particularly grand idea. If they both sit out, it probably works for the best- LA is busy with Detroit, and won't turn their ire on Houston or New York. However, both Houston and New York realize that if, between the two of them, the other attacks Detroit, then LA will be more inclinded to see the one that attacked it's enemy in a kinder light, and thus more likely to attack the nonparticipant when Detroit is reduced to a smouldering tire field.

Thus, there's even a chance Detroit will just be curb-stomped by all three other orgs. Today. It wasn't really challenging for any of the three orgs, and Detroit really had no chance of acting in its own defense.

That was needlessly complex. But my point is... yadda yadda yadda... prisoner's dillema... yadda yadda yadda... dominant strategy... yadda yadda yadda... game theory.

Ultimately, unless all orgs are somehow near perfectly equal at all times, a four-way brawl isn't likely. It would be much more likely to have a "victim of the week" sort of effect. And even if the orgs were all equal, there is a natural tendancy towards alliance with someone, just because of basic prisoner's dillema. If you ally, you're more likely to win. If you do nothing, you at best win against someone else that does nothing, at worse lose to people allied against you. But we've discussed this before too.

The only way to do it at all would be a restrictive, cage-match sort of conflict where only members of the two conflicting orgs could mechanically participate, and anyone else was prevented from attacking either in any way.

No way. Increase conflict. I love conflict. Not saying it should stay this exact way forever - maybe have Serenwilde ally with Magnagora and Celest with Glomdoring or something eventually. I think constantly changing IC alliances will allow people to meet people they never have before, and will add new dimensions to everything. It protects against stagnation.

Further, I would -love- to see a city's version of the tree that was on Earth. Maybe some kind of magical oil rig sucking the very life from the forest.

Already exists, if you guys had done your side of the quest. Or maybe worse. Who knows?