Unknown2009-05-23 00:06:07
QUOTE (Xenthos @ May 22 2009, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.
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.
This I really agree with and have always wanted to see more of.
Unknown2009-05-23 00:17:50
QUOTE (Xenthos @ May 22 2009, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.
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.
Yeah, meant to mention that this is good stuff too - except that I think there should still be some individual rewards involved.
Xenthos2009-05-23 00:21:53
QUOTE (Deschain @ May 22 2009, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, meant to mention that this is good stuff too - except that I think there should still be some individual rewards involved.
Yes, individual rewards has been part of my desire all along too as part of less-org-focus. Apparently I left it out for some reason.
Trasse2009-05-23 00:29:56
Oh man, a 4-way org brawl in a similar vein as Wildnodes sounds like a lot of fun.
What if, instead of battles taking place in the Nexus Worlds, all that Collosi/Aethership/Ground Troop mayhem took place on some neutral Aetherbubble, with all the orgs vying for control of some Macguffins that would give their constructs increased power (more exp from Aetherbubbles in the case of the Harmony construct, cheaper discretionary powers, cheaper power upkeep costs, better phial etc.) These macguffins could be covered in shielding that can either be focused away by ground troops, or smashed away more quickly with collossi, or bombarded with Aetherships. The ground troops could then focus it toward their own org. I'd imagine that each macguffin would have 4 shields: red, green, blue, and purple, and each org would race to destroy their relevant shield in order to begin focusing.
Just a crazy idea off the top of my head because I'm bored at work...
What if, instead of battles taking place in the Nexus Worlds, all that Collosi/Aethership/Ground Troop mayhem took place on some neutral Aetherbubble, with all the orgs vying for control of some Macguffins that would give their constructs increased power (more exp from Aetherbubbles in the case of the Harmony construct, cheaper discretionary powers, cheaper power upkeep costs, better phial etc.) These macguffins could be covered in shielding that can either be focused away by ground troops, or smashed away more quickly with collossi, or bombarded with Aetherships. The ground troops could then focus it toward their own org. I'd imagine that each macguffin would have 4 shields: red, green, blue, and purple, and each org would race to destroy their relevant shield in order to begin focusing.
Just a crazy idea off the top of my head because I'm bored at work...
Xenthos2009-05-23 00:30:56
How long has it been since there was a 4-way brawl in wildnodes?
Serious question. I never see it. It's always 2v1 or 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v1.
Serious question. I never see it. It's always 2v1 or 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v1.
Krellan2009-05-23 00:39:02
I steal from everyone.
On that note, shrines should be disabled during wildnodes for the same reason linking nodes was. After the initial rush, it's nearly impossible to change the outcome should both sides have even numbers of participants. The side with the most, and shrine powers up will likely win.
On that note, shrines should be disabled during wildnodes for the same reason linking nodes was. After the initial rush, it's nearly impossible to change the outcome should both sides have even numbers of participants. The side with the most, and shrine powers up will likely win.
Estarra2009-05-23 00:50:10
QUOTE (Xenthos @ May 22 2009, 05:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, individual rewards has been part of my desire all along too as part of less-org-focus. Apparently I left it out for some reason.
Er, aren't you just talking about regular quests? There's lots of them around!
Xenthos2009-05-23 00:55:42
QUOTE (Estarra @ May 22 2009, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Er, aren't you just talking about regular quests? There's lots of them around!
No. I'm talking about things that involve small-scale conflict against other people (PvP), for small personal rewards. Quests are pretty much non-conflict and for a lone individual.
Edit: Note, optional conflict!
Shamarah2009-05-23 01:02:29
QUOTE (Deschain @ May 22 2009, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.
...
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.
...
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.
I like these ideas. Increasing rewards from combat might encourage more people to participate and become interested in it who otherwise wouldn't. Experience gain from combat is incredibly low for some reason (you rarely gain more than like 1% even for a high-level kill), particularly in contrast with the other IREs where you can gain really huge amounts of experience from it, giving people more incentive to participate (on Aetolia, you gain 1.5 million exp for each pkill above a certain level, I forget what; and on Imperian you gain even more IIRC). In particular, I really like the idea of getting experience when one of your allies in a raid/defense scores a kill, because as-is the people who get all the kills are the demiwarriors; lower-level combatants have no real chance to score a kill in group combat and this will give them more incentive to participate.
... Admittedly, this isn't really what this thread is about though.
Krellan2009-05-23 01:08:09
I could support that as well and it does relate. I would support decreased or eliminated negative effects for increased positive ones. I'd prefer something other than experience, be it karma (though we actually lose it), esteem, or just basic gold.
Unknown2009-05-23 01:17:22
I like the amount of conflict we currently have. The fighting right now seems to be just where I personally enjoy it; intermittent raids with explicit objectives (steal dwarfs. steal fae. kill demons.) but no long seiges or people smacking something and running when too many defenders for them to take shows up. Even when we loose, it's fine because we can always raid them back later and nobody is really being a pain in the butt so it's all cool. Please don't change that, if you make changes.
The important limiting factor for raiding and conflict is not ingame resources, but player irritation. If the raiding and conflict is -fun- it can go on all day and nobody complains. If it's annoying and bothersome to defend against, even one-man raids are a pain. With that in mind, I think the Admin should focus on making the results of conflict less tedious or less annoying, rather than alter the numbers for power gained/lost.
As noted in one of the above posts, the reaction to all of the Supernals dieing and the Star falling is not "Awww, man. We are going to loose so much power." it's "Awww, man. Now I have to camp the inner sea for squid."
The important limiting factor for raiding and conflict is not ingame resources, but player irritation. If the raiding and conflict is -fun- it can go on all day and nobody complains. If it's annoying and bothersome to defend against, even one-man raids are a pain. With that in mind, I think the Admin should focus on making the results of conflict less tedious or less annoying, rather than alter the numbers for power gained/lost.
As noted in one of the above posts, the reaction to all of the Supernals dieing and the Star falling is not "Awww, man. We are going to loose so much power." it's "Awww, man. Now I have to camp the inner sea for squid."
Unknown2009-05-23 01:22:51
What. The hell. Is this. I don't think anyone was asking for a reduction in conflict and its consequences besides Jozan.
I want there to be a third option in this referendum: increase the level of conflict and the impact it has. If you don't like it, there's a thousand other MUDs out there with no conflict at all, or limited PvP with none of the incredible features that Lusternia offers. It, more than anything else, it what sets us apart from the rest of IRE and the rest of the MUD community - player run organizations participating in player-driven warfare with actual consequences. It's what Lusternia is built on and you'd might as well shut the MUD down as remove the conflict, or all we'll have is a bunch of snuggly RPers. Remember what happened when the sea quests were removed of all significance? People stopped caring about whether the turtles or seawolves won, and barely anyone bothers with them anymore. Do we want every quest to be like that? What will be left besides bashing and socializing? Nothing.
Note I only read Estarra's opening post and the first few after it. I promise I'll be more constructive later on.
I want there to be a third option in this referendum: increase the level of conflict and the impact it has. If you don't like it, there's a thousand other MUDs out there with no conflict at all, or limited PvP with none of the incredible features that Lusternia offers. It, more than anything else, it what sets us apart from the rest of IRE and the rest of the MUD community - player run organizations participating in player-driven warfare with actual consequences. It's what Lusternia is built on and you'd might as well shut the MUD down as remove the conflict, or all we'll have is a bunch of snuggly RPers. Remember what happened when the sea quests were removed of all significance? People stopped caring about whether the turtles or seawolves won, and barely anyone bothers with them anymore. Do we want every quest to be like that? What will be left besides bashing and socializing? Nothing.
Note I only read Estarra's opening post and the first few after it. I promise I'll be more constructive later on.
Estarra2009-05-23 01:33:40
QUOTE (Xenthos @ May 22 2009, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No. I'm talking about things that involve small-scale conflict against other people (PvP), for small personal rewards. Quests are pretty much non-conflict and for a lone individual.
I guess you'll have to give me an example that doesn't sound like a contrived arena FFA.
Casilu2009-05-23 01:40:02
QUOTE (Estarra @ May 22 2009, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I guess you'll have to give me an example that doesn't sound like a contrived arena FFA.
One big complaint I always heard is that PvP XP is extremely low.
Unknown2009-05-23 01:40:16
QUOTE (Azoth Nae'blis @ May 22 2009, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What. The hell. Is this. I don't think anyone was asking for a reduction in conflict and its consequences besides Jozan.
I was actually spurred on this lobbying crusade by talking with numerous people about it. If you'll read the entire thread, you can make a more informed post, seeing how there are several people on both camps of the issue.
Cheers.
Tekora2009-05-23 01:43:50
What about a thing where, if you kill someone, they drop some kind of gem or such that if you equip it, it gives you a Divine Favour-like buff that doesn't stack if you wear more than one? Give them a 1-5 month decay time. You could even wear them like trophies.
QUOTE
look Seretenin
He is a sinuous illithoid... ...he is wearing the soul gem of Sadhyra and the soul gem of Shaddus.
He is a sinuous illithoid... ...he is wearing the soul gem of Sadhyra and the soul gem of Shaddus.
Estarra2009-05-23 01:47:59
QUOTE (Tekora @ May 22 2009, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What about a thing where, if you kill someone, they drop some kind of gem or such that if you equip it, it gives you a Divine Favour-like buff that doesn't stack if you wear more than one? Give them a 1-5 month decay time. You could even wear them like trophies.
Well, I can't see how to justify people dropping gems (soulgems... er, no)... why not just wear shrunken heads!
Tekora2009-05-23 01:50:02
Don't Trackers already get shrunken heads?
Anyway, point is, provide some kind of skill/stat bonus for being good at PvP. People tend to like skill/stat bonuses, and will take action to get them. Look at Tosha.
Anyway, point is, provide some kind of skill/stat bonus for being good at PvP. People tend to like skill/stat bonuses, and will take action to get them. Look at Tosha.
Estarra2009-05-23 01:50:19
Joking aside, I don't think people were talking about more rewards for pk per se, but some sort of contest/game/quest where PK is a side effect . (At least, I think that was the idea.)
Unknown2009-05-23 01:51:48
QUOTE (Jozan @ May 22 2009, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was actually spurred on this lobbying crusade by talking with numerous people about it. If you'll read the entire thread, you can make a more informed post, seeing how there are several people on both camps of the issue.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Those people ought to come out and raise their voices themselves. One thing I've always noticed is that the players most opposed to conflict are the newer, less experienced ones who frankly have no right to talk. They just cry when the bonuses they've been receiving since leaving the portal are pulled out from under them, and when they're no longer allowed to frolick with their friends from enemy orgs. These aren't necessarily the people you're talking about, but they do form the bulwark of the movement to neuter conflict.
I've seen countless wonderful ideas about how to alter the conflict system proposed over the years and they're pretty much been ignored. Rather than coming out and saying "do we keep it or do we get rid of it?", you should be asking "how do we make this better for everyone?" This is the time to start experimenting, not with tiny tweaks but with broad changes. As for what those changes should be, I dunno, but if you take a shovel to the ideas forum and root around deep enough I'm sure you'll strike gold.
