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.)

I'm hesitant to encourage PK for the sake of getting rewards (xp/whatever). I'd be more open to the contest/quest/game aspect, providing it makes RP sense in-game.

No. Domoths are time-limited. They are large-scale battles. They happen when the owner wants them to happen (often at a time when there is the least resistance possible). They only really change hands by agreement or when they flux. And they're only for a small section of the game.

New areas would hopefully allow for the fighting when people feel like it, instead of when someone else says, "Hey, let's go!"

First off, keep in mind that this isn't Shaddus the character that is saying this, this is me, the player.


I don't think anything at all needs to be change. The fact of the matter is, there is an ebb and flow to everything. At one point, Magnagora was on top while the other groups huddled together in dark corners, trying to be quiet. Now, Magnagora is being smacked around. Conflict makes the world go round and a majority of the long time players probably wouldn't stay around if Lusternia is reduced to no more than a chat room.

The Basin of Life is based upon the idea of differences. Person A works towards the betterment of his or her community. This hurts Player B's group, so he has to perform a counter quest. Simple enough, and it keeps things lively. If these quests were removed, what else is there? Everyone hunts to demigod? And how many people merely quit after Demigod, merely for the fact that there isn't anything else left to strive for. Sure, destroyed constructs sort sucks for some people. But I can guarantee that working to bring them back will liven up Celest, and the people who log off until times are "shiny" and "easy going" probably aren't the people who will work to make their organization the best in the Basin.

I think Murphy said, it best. "Toughen up, Princess".

And Admin? Don't cave to a group of people who whine (that includes me, sometimes). If you go along with every whim thrown your way, sooner or later Lusternia will just turn into a glorified Furcadia.

Oh, and I voted no.

Then there will be zero incentive to defend. If Ashtorath dying costs no power and has no impact on abilities or the state of the Necromentate, why bother defending him? Just to stop the other side from getting the benefits? How boring.

Pacts shouldn't fade on Supernal Death, such a garbage mechanic for guardians. Yes, I realize people want there to be consequences but seriously? If you raided the Forge Homeworld and killed Kingforgealot and no knights could use freaking weapons until you poured a bunch of "easily gained" essence into Kingforgealot, would that be any more fair? No, still garbage taking away a skillset they depend on.

Edit: Yes, squid and zoo quests are crap.

'could make it so Wiccans can't summon guardians without avatars up.

'could make it so Wiccans can't summon guardians without avatars up.

We can't summon Barghests already if Gwyllgi is dead, nor Redcaps if Glumki is dead, nor Slaughs if Lhiannan is dead. Same is true for the Moon Avatars and their respective Fae.

That's already how it works.

And Krellan, I think you're completely wrong there. When people defend Nil or Celestia, it's at least partially to prevent the negative consequences of a successful raid. To suggest otherwise is pretty nuts.

FYI, the referendum shows that a lot of people do want to reduce negative effects from conflict systems in some way. I have a feeling these types of people may simply be under-represented in the forum discussions.

Indeed.

And though the discussion is at least lively here, I caution against the line of reasoning that goes:

"If you want to reduce the penalities for losing, you must not want conflict. Voting for reduced penalties is a vote against conflict."

This has the same basic issues as gems such as:

"If you are against your nation using torture, you must be against your nation."

"If you don't agree with these emission standards, you must hate the planet."

and so on so on so forth.

And that's how it should be. There are negative consequences to losing, but they're not by any means permanent. Losing power doesn't mean anything but a negative impact on your powerlogs.

Well, it does impact your org's ability to raise more Vernal Ascendants and constructs. Power really was meaningless before these two additions to the game, but people still cared about it because it was a way to "keep score". Its changing nature means it's no longer very useful as a score keeper, and I think we need more uses for power that aren't as massive as Vernals or as long-term as constructs.

Actually, I was under the impression that there are a number of us who would love rewards for pk! And I'm not talking about experience or whatever Shamarah wanted. I do feel that may encourage younger people to try, but it's not a big deal to me. The 'rewards for pk' I'm talking about is what Synl mentioned. We reduce negative effects of conflict quests such as Avatars/Demon Lords/Supernals and replace them with personal or org benefits. For example, killing Ashtorath would allow you to turn the corpse in for power; however, at the same time, Nihilists would still be able to use Ashtorath's power and Magnagora would lose zero power for letting Ashtorath fall. Gaining power can be substituted with other benefits such as massively increased gold drop (which would on average be split more than 10 ways) so that each participating raider can have gained something worth risking their lives. Other ideas suggested include a health, mana, ego blessing which are very popular.

All in all, people will pk for the fun of it, but conflict quests require incentive without the penalities to make them both satisfying and fun to do as well as not create a stressful environment.

While your reasoning is correct, most of the basis of the arguments I've read thus far in favour for reducing the penalties have been in favour for reducing conflict and/or those who do not participate in it.

I actually feel like the opposite of this would be true. When Glomdoring was really down, there was a whole lot of the sentiment, "Let's not even try to do anything back to them, they're only going to smack us again worse, later." If the "cost" of losing were not as high, wouldn't people be more willing to risk inviting conflict?

Considering the concept of "power" is the premise for Lusternia, anything that would involve dissolving this premise seems to be deconstructive to the general atmosphere and point of the game. You don't use massive amounts of power for anything BESIDES Vernals or Constructs and even then you still have plenty of power. From what I've heard, only ONE organization has ever gone into negative power and that was Glomdoring when it was first starting out.

That is incorrect. According to Celest's first news posts, the Pool of Stars was also in the negative when the game was first opened (post-beta, I'm assuming). I would venture that Serenwilde was the same way. Magnagora may or may not have been into negative power because Visaeris apparently knew how to influence villages before anyone else figured out how.