I actually found Lusternia through an ad on Facebook two years ago (which I only saw that one time ever, oddly enough). I stuck around because I got intrigued and spent about 2 hours reading about all the races/cities/etc on the site and decided they have frogpeople and wind magic yes cool I shall try this.

HOWEVER. I would not have even looked into the lore if the website had looked like it did now. Yeah yeah I gripe about the site a lot but that's because I think the way it is right now does a huge disservice to the game. If I'd clicked an ad on Facebook and it took me to the current front page, I would have thought eh, another one of these stupid games and not looked into it at all.

So I don't think "marketing through Facebook" is in itself a bad move, but I think marketing through Facebook when your website looks like a generic "TOTALLY FREE!!!!!" game is turning off the people who would play and stick around otherwise. Because they think it's probably going to be dumb.

I feel that advertising the game based on being "free" is certainly a bad direction to take it. Instead, it should be marketed on it's open-endedness, active story events, customizability, and above all roleplay, something that is so rare in MMOs yet attractive to many people.

Agreed, nowadays it seems that every other game on the internet is "free", however very few are actually interesting.

Lendren:

Combat has always been the heart of Lusternia, but it was never all of Lusternia, and it was always about something. We sold meaning way too cheap without realizing what we were giving away. When was the last time your fight was about something? When was the last time it mattered who won, other than domoths and villages, to the extent they actually matter? When Lusternia lost the people who cared about the stuff it used to have and gave away for so little, it must have hoped it would attract more of the people who like what it still has. But it seems that those people just keep moving around from role to role, but few new ones ever join.

But is that a bad thing? If they're enjoying themselves, and if skill/guild/orghopping provides a sustainable business model, then Lusternia's just fine even with a smaller population and very little new blood.

That said, I really think that there was some incredible stuff that got short-sold at a fraction of its value, and it was just the kind of stuff where it would take years to realize it was a mistake to sell it so cheap, and that's where we are now.

foolofsound:

I'm going to reiterate my long-held view that group combat in Lusternia needs a bit of an overhaul.

The simplest (and this is a relative term) way of making group combat more fun is to discourage the "divide and conquer" paradigm that dominates large groups. Smaller groups (wargame sized) allow for more tactical and interesting combat, and I beleive that this sort of combat should be promoted. How to do this? I recommend implementing a system in which a player being targeted by multiple foes (more than two) gains progressive resistance to vitals damage and a progressive shruggign rate on afflictions (with afflictions costing power having much reduced shrugging). This damage resistance and aff shrugging would start if you have been targeted by three different people in the last 10 seconds, and would quadratically increase so that by the time six people are targetting you, they are seriously inhibiting each other, and by the time ten target you, they have all but made themselves ineffective. A change in this vein would eliminate the bunker based group combat that I find makes raids so boring, and would instead make large confrontations based on multiple small combats.

Second, I feel that the cost of entry in Lusternia is too high, and worse, obviously too high. I feel that the fairly outrageous amount fo credits required just to have sufficent skills to enter combat scares of a great many players. I would highly recommend doubling or even tripling or quadrupling the number of lessons gained through level up; enough to actually become seriously competant in your guild skills if nothing else. I'm not really going to complain about artifacts, most archetypes can get by with fairly minimal artifacts; I've seen mid-tier combatants of every archetype with rather few artifacts.

Actually, I would rather like to see alliances be stirred up on occassion. I feel that allowing alliances to stagnate too long, especially when one side can control, say, the vast majority of the aetherbubbles, leads to a lot of resentment from the losing side and boredom on the winning side. I feel Lusterna's narrative would also be more interesting with fewer "save the world" type events and more politically motivated events from the orgs themselves.

I only read the first page, but these two posts piqued my interest and I agree with some points of them.

As a former player who has quit entirely, I've logged in for two or three small periods of time just to chat with people since 2009, when I left. Even then, I saw the problems Tully mentions, and the fact that it's still continuing leads me to believe that there will never be a push by the admin to actually work on problems that matter, and the player base will continue to nosedive.

My biggest problems with the game are as follows, some of them having been touched

Combat

• The rift between new players and those who are considered what used to be upper-middle and top tier is too wide (I don't believe these tiers exist at all anymore, and I'll get to that in a bit). To bridge that gap, the only option is to collect something like 4000 credits, if you're not a warrior, on just skills alone. Absolutely ridiculous. Sure, every now and again you'll get a newbie who has $1000 he can spend over the course of a year or two, but it's rare and it's a really stupid model.
  
• When I played consistently, I began seeing new items being introduced that were so good, they became mandatory. Near the end of my time here, I was already getting fed up with having to re-code a system every month because an envoy made some skill, in an already too complex system, too powerful and another too weak this month, but then throwing more things in the mix not only raises the learning curve by making things more convoluted, it also makes it more expensive.
  
• As mentioned, combat has meant absolutely nothing in Lusternia for a long time, and I could argue that it has NEVER meant something. I think the closest Lusternia got was conflict quest, which were canceled due complaints. However, in a game that purposefully pits organizations against other organizations in a never-ending war and then throws in one other organization that can you can be at war or at peace with, why is there no mechanic for deciding the end of a war? I remember when I finally had enough, we were at war with Glomdoring and were being absolutely trounced. I wanted to make peace with Glomdoring, but why would they? There's absolutely no reason to stop a war, and the only real way to 'win' one is to make the other side stop logging in. Terrible.
  

I also felt that the admin have an incredibly naive and uninformed view of the game, were very detached to reality, and didn't understand how to balance, test, or consider changes properly. The use of a test server was rarely used (I think a max of five times when I was envoy) to see the actual effects of big changes. The admin are content to look at the numbers and make concrete decisions, but I can assure you that this is not how it actually works in the game.

Anyway, this post turned out longer than I expected for a game that I've become very disappointed in. Maybe I'll write more, maybe not. But these are things that I see the game really dropping the ball on where it should have done very well.

talkans:

• As mentioned, combat has meant absolutely nothing in Lusternia for a long time, and I could argue that it has NEVER meant something. I think the closest Lusternia got was conflict quest, which were canceled due complaints. However, in a game that purposefully pits organizations against other organizations in a never-ending war and then throws in one other organization that can you can be at war or at peace with, why is there no mechanic for deciding the end of a war? I remember when I finally had enough, we were at war with Glomdoring and were being absolutely trounced. I wanted to make peace with Glomdoring, but why would they? There's absolutely no reason to stop a war, and the only real way to 'win' one is to make the other side stop logging in. Terrible.
  

Without bringing up too much about the said event, I seem to recall that the fighting stopped (relatively) when Magnagora (who was your ally) won (250k power, plus Maeve got Tainted. Hi Maeve). I don't recall a peace offering - only a nice post saying (roughly), 'Guys, let's rageqq in protest because the Admin are obviously against us.' I'll find the post somewhere, hang on.

After that, a peace was settled - you'll see that Celest and Glomdoring are now buddies. I guess you just didn't stick through to the 'end'. I, personally, like the un-mechanic of creating alliances and declaring wars.

EDIT: Here we go -- Celest news #3161. News posts from #3080 are interesting, too.

I have to commend Celest though, that even during their down time they had plenty of communication going on (unlike others!).

Without bringing up too much about the said event, I seem to recall that the fighting stopped (relatively) when Magnagora (who was your ally) won (250k power, plus Maeve got Tainted. Hi Maeve). I don't recall a peace offering - only a nice post saying (roughly), 'Guys, let's rageqq in protest because the Admin are obviously against us.' I'll find the post somewhere, hang on.

After that, a peace was settled - you'll see that Celest and Glomdoring are now buddies. I guess you just didn't stick through to the 'end'. I, personally, like the un-mechanic of creating alliances and declaring wars.


I'm not really familiar with that no, so I think I left beforehand too. I had meetings with the Glomdoring council two times, but it mainly came down to the fact that New Celest had nothing to offer of value to Glomdoring, and we couldn't outfight them, so why stop raiding?

And sure, everything is cyclical, but at the whim of the admin, not the players. As you stated, it was nothing that Celest did, apparently, that ended the war and made Glom and Celest be friends three years after the fact, it was something Mag did with the admin approval.

The un-mechanic of declaring war seems to work because it allows for an open-ended declaration of war, which is nice. Go to war because of anything, as long as you can get the ruling body to agree, but what happens when the obvious losers of the war are not logging in to play because they can't make their victors stop? You can still have the un-mechanic of declaration with a mechanic of treaties.

Not taking into account the current War (Glom-Celest-Gaudi vs Seren-Mag-Halli), because it's fueled by many weird things:

There were a number of things New Celest could have dangled in front of Glomdoring (and Serenwilde) to make the fighting stop. The most obvious one was to stop the movement to remove the binding of Raziela with Magnagora's help. Narsrim (who was Celestian at that time) kept trying to do the Xion side (and he succeeded once - which ended the war), so we really had no reason to stop and think, 'Hey, maybe really really want to stop.'

Not taking into account the current War (Glom-Celest-Gaudi vs Seren-Mag-Halli), because it's fueled by many weird things:

There were a number of things New Celest could have dangled in front of Glomdoring (and Serenwilde) to make the fighting stop. The most obvious one was to stop the movement to remove the binding of Raziela with Magnagora's help. Narsrim (who was Celestian at that time) kept trying to do the Xion side (and he succeeded once - which ended the war), so we really had no reason to stop and think, 'Hey, maybe really really want to stop.'


I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic. I think my original point stands that no organization has any incentive to stop a war when they are winning. If someone has a specific example of the opposite of this, I'd be interested to hear it, but I doubt in the few years that I've been away that a formal war has ended by treaty with the winning organization taking the initiative or accepting a proposal by the losing side.

In fact, I think this is a strong argument why there have only been two declared wars, that I can think of, which have been the Celest/Seren war and then the Celest/Glomdoring and Seren war. Why actually declare a war when there can be no actual end? It's not sensible for a character to suggest halting aggressions against their sworn enemies for the sake OF their enemies. It's just contrived, from the way I view it, and it need not be.

I use the war mechanic as an example of an overarching theme of mishandles by the administration that has had over half a decade to fix, but has rather relied on throwing more distractions into the game than fix its core gameplay. Someone mentioned EVE Online, and I think that's a fitting example.

EVE lost overall subscriptions for the first time since 2003. That's pretty amazing for an MMO in today's market, to continually add more subscribers every year since its inception in 2003. But when CCP, the company behind EVE Online, decided the players wanted more glitz and frills, the players left. CCP was forced to trim staff by 20% and really buckle down and work on the things that mattered the most, and sure enough, players returned.

Why couldn't Lusternia have realized that too?

but what happens when the obvious losers of the war are not logging in to play because they can't make their victors stop?

What would you do? How would mechanically implement a start, and an end, to conflict between orgs?

Why couldn't Lusternia have realized that too?

I have no problem admitting that we have room to improve, but this seems unfair. What Lusternia has needed to realize can, and has, shifted back and forth. Years ago, combat was too much. Players from certain orgs were burning out and everything was becoming a chore. Later on, combat is too hard. Certain areas became "impossible" to raid and there was no benefit. When events were run in the past that pushed players into new alliances, it was the dumbest idea we ever had. Now, the static nature of the alliances is making things boring.

I'm in no way saying that this means player input should be ignored, but we can't just go along with whatever popular opinion is at the time. I think it is grave over-simplification to boil it down to: "Lusternia just needs to do X, and everything will be fine."

As for comments about our incompetence/indifference/disconnect from the players, I believe these are beyond offensive and completely uncalled for. We can handle criticism, but let's have it be constructive and something a bit more substantial than, "The admin are stupid and don't care about our concerns". I can guarantee you that is far from the truth.

To be fair, I think a mechanical war system would do wonders in letting certain orgs/players know when they've won and they should stop.

Would it? Didn't they have the same thing in Aetolia and didn't it fail miserably?

To be more fair, it would likely just encourage more violence and griefing as people seek to boost their now quantifiable war points. For most upsides, there are downsides.

Did it?

I'm sure someone here plays Aetolia too, how did that go.

The main point is that with a war system, there is a clear end goal - winning. Players here who complain about pointless conflict wouldn't complain as much if there was a tangible goal at the end of the line. A pot of gold at the end of the proverbial grief window, shall we say.

It's the same reason why those same players don't mind supermob raids.

Edit: Well, of course it would. But there would arguably be more of an IC and OOC point to it than now.

Someone drag Sadhyra back in here and have her elaborate!

Zarquan:

To be more fair, it would likely just encourage more violence and griefing as people seek to boost their now quantifiable war points. For most upsides, there are downsides.

Basically this. Even with a war system, each 'war' will only be deemed a battle in the forever war that at this point, seems ooc in terms of what's perpetuating it.

Under that train of thought, then there really is not much point to keep fighting in any IRE game, not just Lusternia.

That's kind of depressing, IMO.

Some truths are depressing. I occasionally jump onto the forums of other IREs and search 'lusternia', but I see the same sense of ennui and pointlessness regarding combat that we're discussing right now.

I feel like a war system would be the same as the current Order-War system, No one would use it

Razenth:

Some truths are depressing. I occasionally jump onto the forums of other IREs and search 'lusternia', but I see the same sense of ennui and pointlessness regarding combat that we're discussing right now.

That's what I'm saying.

Really, there's not much 'point' to fighting, but boy, it sure is fun*.

I'm not so idealistic that I believe that a new perfect conflict system would wipe out any bad feelings regarding combat, but I figured it'd at least be an interesting distraction that had goals to aim for.

(*) = if you're winning

Nocht:


What would you do? How would mechanically implement a start, and an end, to conflict between orgs?

I have no problem admitting that we have room to improve, but this seems unfair. What Lusternia has needed to realize can, and has, shifted back and forth. Years ago, combat was too much. Players from certain orgs were burning out and everything was becoming a chore. Later on, combat is too hard. Certain areas became "impossible" to raid and there was no benefit. When events were run in the past that pushed players into new alliances, it was the dumbest idea we ever had. Now, the static nature of the alliances is making things boring.

I'm in no way saying that this means player input should be ignored, but we can't just go along with whatever popular opinion is at the time. I think it is grave over-simplification to boil it down to: "Lusternia just needs to do X, and everything will be fine."

As for comments about our incompetence/indifference/disconnect from the players, I believe these are beyond offensive and completely uncalled for. We can handle criticism, but let's have it be constructive and something a bit more substantial than, "The admin are stupid and don't care about our concerns". I can guarantee you that is far from the truth.

There are two ways to handle mechanical war systems that I personally prefer and plan on using in the future and don't mind sharing. The examples listed are the basic, most simplistic levels of the system and are in no way complete, but I hope that this will provide food for thought, in the least:

1. An org that declares war on another org. In doing so, a 'form' is filled out stating which organizations you're declaring war on, for what reasons, what the goal is or what can be offered to end hostilities.

2. Either org that has is officially at war with the other can make an offer, via mechanical commands. If the offer is accepted, hostilities cease and peace is automatically declared.

Peace offerings could include anything the players want: gold, power, the death of a certain player, the ousting of a certain player, the city disfavour, a post on the boards, use your imagination. There can be a lot of fun found in that, if players want to.

The difference between EVE's arguably successful job of getting the game back on track and Lusternia's is that Lusternia has had a history of making changes without informing the players the admin's intent to do so, where EVE has been very clear about their future goals. It's my understanding that the envoy process has a little more transparency now, which is a very good thing, but I'm speaking on a level that's a bit beyond simple skill changes, and referring to things like removing conflict quests, changing the nexus battles, releasing new organizations, etc. These things were suddenly thrust upon the players. And, yes, I understand the excitement of surprise, but I'm of the opinion that it's better to be absolutely open with your players than to spring things that many don't like. It's not worth it, to me, to have a hit and miss system. Do the players of Lusternia know right now what the short, mid, and long term goals of Estarra are? If not, this should never be the case.

If you're offended at my remarks, that's too bad. I'm not singling out anyone specific, but when it comes to the presentation delivered by the administration, it's an all for one type of deal. Nocht, since you replied specifically, I can say that you personally have never struck me as any of the adjectives that you or I listed, but that doesn't mean that the administration as a whole since 2005 has not given this vibe to me. There is a singular lack of understanding of the player's point of view in Lusternia, at least there was when I played, and it attributed, more than anything, to my leaving the game. And in any case, I think I did offer at least one form of criticism. I don't know why you're saying I didn't.