"The difference is, those are facts, and easily verified. Xenthos's comments have no obligation to be connected even to a fictional reality (and regularly live up to that lack of obligation with panache). But at the Star Trek forum, he'd be called on inaccuracies. Like the ridiculous claim that me saying "combat trumps culture" means I'm saying "combat is the only factor" (to be fair, a subtle distinction, but only beyond his desire to win at all costs, not his actual ability at rhetoric)."



If you don't actually mean this, you might want to say that. All I can do is respond to your posted points. I disagree with this sentiment here entirely, because... well... it's extremely apparent it's not. Glomdoring also has a lot of people trying to "add culture to the world" which is why this quest even has any effect. Again, if Hallifax did it, they'd not get Cultural Center. Period. Not a chance. And (once more) the Globglob quest is not even about combat. It is, in the end, a pretty minor shake-up of the underlying cultural scores.

PS: Politics can and has encroached upon combat all the time. For a more recent example: Ask Celina.

You have a very specific view of what you think Lusternia should be and you like to try to 'attack' me for disagreeing with it, but I feel my rebuttal is quite solid. You're not even trying to engage the points, just trying to dismiss the argument as "unfounded". Which is a valid tactic, but it's got no substance whatsoever, so it doesn't fly for me. You can insist you're right all you want, but that doesn't make it so. This is a game with many, many different viewpoints.

Further, "winning at all costs" would've had me declare you, chase you down, and gust you away from your scholars and bards yesterday. I did that once recently, felt bad, and have settled for just paying newbies for their collections instead and leaving others alone.

I've always thought that the reason combat encroaches on everything is because it is literally a brute force that you can apply when something isn't -working- in your other aspects or your other aspects aren't doing enough to get the job done. It naturally expands in to everything else by virtue of being the largest portion of the game - combat is fueled by those other things. The economy is the way it is because certain things are crucial to combat, politics/RP are important for resolving, avoiding, or initiating combat, etc.

That's true to an extent. It's also because so much of the game is focused on combat (note that I'm not saying it isn't a part of pretty much every aspect of Lusternia, I'm just disputing that it is as large a part of Culture as is being claimed). Another reason is because there really are very few inhibitors on it. The only real inhibitor is politics, and with politics you have to walk the fine line of not inhibiting it so much that you get a general revolt on your hands.

Also, combat tends to mean more credits bought to fuel the habit, so. Eh. It is what a lot of people play for. More than in the past, which (I think) is why Lendren is so bitter. There are still some of us who don't play for combat, though. In every organization. However, Lusternia has changed. Combat is an integral part of it, and, like it or not, probably isn't going anywhere.

Having countless hours of work count for nothing because of bugs. I'm a patient person, but damn it really wants to make me QQ so I wouldn't have to look at the game

Combat works well because you can stick combat on anything that involves mechanics, like questing. Still, Lendren's definition of "combat" is a little like Azoth's definition of "combat." It is not true that combat = hard = barriers = I lose. Not every barrier is combat, not everything hard is a barrier, and not everything that is hard, a barrier, or actually combat is an invitation for you to feel stymied in everything that you do.

I don't get why people honestly still think org politics matter. All city leaders actually do is listen to annoying people complain and appoint ministers and things to do the real work (most of which really doesn't matter either apart from power). They don't even start or end wars or really do much to affect inter-org politics, because events do that and there's no reason to break the status quo without an event. You aren't going to win or lose villages, domoths, wildnodes, or culture center based on the leader you elect.

Agree in part, though a well liked individual who becomes CL can be rather effective motivation too. Victories aren't limited to villages, domoths, wildnodes, or culture center by any means either.

That's true, actually. I think most of the people who tend to be remembered as the "best" CLs and GMs were symbols who became emblematic of their organization as a whole (eg. Daevos for Magnagora and Shayle for the Shadowdancers). I suppose one of the important powers a city leader actually has is the ability to attract people to the org.

While this is generally the case, a particularly good or bad leader will definitely have an impact on their org's effectiveness. A leader sets priorities and how they manage to communicate those priorities has a big impact on their org's morale. Look at Magnagora under Daevos, for example - its success can't be attributed solely to him, as he had a whole crew of skilled underlings on his side, but he was able to keep those people on his side and use them to the city's advantage. If allowed to lead, an exceptional leader can do great things, but it's very dependent upon them and who they're working with. Glomdoring, for example, could have any of a dozen people in charge right now and it wouldn't change a thing. Shuyin, Xenthos, Narynth, Talan, Viynain - even Urazial, Alacardael or Evaine or one of those lot. They're one little assbusting clique and the rest of Glom is happy to follow them because they get results.

I worded all that pretty sloppily from I've been going 24-48 hours without sleep regularly of late and my ability to string together coherent thoughts has suffered dramatically. Make some sense out of it.

edit: Ixion beat me to it.

That is actually the biggest thing, yes. Through being a strong force that people gravitate towards.

However, there still is some room for politics. For example, Glom signed a cease-fire with Celest, were working on a treaty, etc. Until a couple of Celest's citizens decided they didn't want it and the leaders (or lack thereof) decided they didn't care any more. Which was entirely based on IC discussions / events (such as Celina repeatedly soloing Celestia). I guess this also proves your point in some ways, that people will do what they want-- but a strong leader can get people to stay in line (to an extent).

But you become emblematic by getting stuff done. Daevos was a top-notch combatant in his day and created an atmosphere where other people wanted to be a combatant too. That's a pretty stark contrast to, say, an org where your patron revolts because he's losing influence, your raid defense leaders are petty, demanding, and quick to blame others, and your CR6 population thinks name in event post > all. A CL should crack down on that. A good CL can just make the problem go away by creating new and better outlets for people.

Or until Glomdoring decided to not enforce the treaty on their end and really couldn't figure out why Celest would be so bloodthirsty as to remove an enemy from Water.

Has the ring of truth.

/starts the "Ryboi for Hallifax Leader" fanclub

Sometimes I wonder how that kid remembers how to breath.

He used to annoy me, but now he just astonishes me.

And back down it goes. <3

The koopa lies.

What? It was at 3.

I felt bad so I gave him five stars.

This.