I don't know if a war system would work or be a bad idea here. I can see reasons both ways. But I think I can safely say that "Aetolia tried it and it didn't work" has pretty much no bearing on the question, given the gulf between how well Aetolia tended to implement things (at least back then; maybe it's different now), and how well Lusternia tends to implement things. It's like saying "Driving to Pittsburgh is a bad idea" because one guy's drunk uncle put his rusted '64 Edsel into a ditch on the same road.

Achaea tried it, and it didn't work either. Just sayin'.

Numbers being numbers, it doesn't seem that in three years Lusternias player population has actually "nosedived".

I understand how hard it is to strike a balance in the game, something has to give, and imho Lusternia has more reasons than other IREs for raiding. Whenever it's easy and worth the risk is something else.

talkans:

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.
Stuff.

I'm sorry, but why should the Admin have to tell us every single little thing they do or are going to do? There would be no surprises or plot twists. It's their grand vision after all. Yes, we as players are important, but we can't dictate their actions. We can make suggestions which they may or may not put into use. It would be like an audience member storming on stage in the middle of a performance and grabbing their instruments and saying 'No, no, no, this is how it's done and can't be done any other way'.

I think he's talking more about mechanical changes, not plot/story changes! I kind of have to agree, to some extent. A lot of times when a big new mechanic comes out of nowhere there are problems with it that a player would be able to recognize better than an admin, as we more often face the 'realities' of how code works out in practice.

I've got awhole bunch more to say, but don't want to say it until I have a coherent post. I just wanted to point out how I read that statement.

I believe the war system became downplayed heavily and they added in a new conflict system (discussion thread here). The inherit issue with any such system seems to be that it requires players to want to use it and if done wrong can actually incentivise griefing.

One of the considerations of a war system would be the need to fight over something. We have resources generated by villages, but we don't really fight over them in the same sense as they are their own magic circle, Same for aetherspace. Power is portrayed at various times to be a valuable resource that we should be fighting over but for the most part passive and active generation are not really a "war" thing, excluding once off offerings of slain org "things".

The aetolian war stuff appears to be more general territory capture serving the same purpose as villages do for us. The new system appears to be what we might have expected from nexus worlds when they were first discussed.

The idea of developing and maintaining bonuses is interesting. We tried this here with constructs, but they were an all or nothing thing that could be taken away by other people. Having a research tree that is presented as a set of constructs that we develop and maintain using either an existing or new resource might provide an incentive. Power seems an obvious choice, or auronidon particles (or the ever crazy unique commodities per org).

Alliances though, need to be broken up just as much as wars. A system which just exists to allow Glomdoring to attack Serenwilde until they mechanically receive a benefit, then Celest to attack Serenwilde until they receive a benefit, and so on seems like it would just end with an org being curb stomped even harder.

I keep coming back to an idea involving small instance worlds produced by cosmic, elemental, or ethereal vibrations intersecting unnaturally to create a pocket of reality where forces native to that vibration become trapped in endless war. The only way to help one side is to destroy the other, doing so presents a reward unique to the side you are assisting. As the intersections are random in nature there is the possibility that an org could be fighting any other org, uninvolved orgs could participate as well with the end goal of attaining or denying resources.

Though my immediate expectation with any such system is that it would become a magic circle. Glomdoring could slay angelkin by the thousands in intersections to give them resources or deny serenwilde but would Celest hate them for it?

GealbhanBheag:


I'm sorry, but why should the Admin have to tell us every single little thing they do or are going to do? There would be no surprises or plot twists. It's their grand vision after all. Yes, we as players are important, but we can't dictate their actions. We can make suggestions which they may or may not put into use. It would be like an audience member storming on stage in the middle of a performance and grabbing their instruments and saying 'No, no, no, this is how it's done and can't be done any other way'.

Enyalida:

I think he's talking more about mechanical changes, not plot/story changes! I kind of have to agree, to some extent. A lot of times when a big new mechanic comes out of nowhere there are problems with it that a player would be able to recognize better than an admin, as we more often face the 'realities' of how code works out in practice.

I've got awhole bunch more to say, but don't want to say it until I have a coherent post. I just wanted to point out how I read that statement.

Correct, I mean mechanical changes that effect large scale mechanics. Again, this doesn't refer to individual skill tweaks, but things like nexus battles, domoths, conflict quests, to name a few.

And while yes, Geal, you're right, when it comes to events, we're more audience members than anything (which is for a whole other topic and has been addressed before - I have to give admin credit here, they do well with events), when it comes to gameplay, players are never audience members; they're paying customers, and they deserve and should demand the utmost respect from the people who we pay and who have volunteered their time and effort to support the game. As a former volunteer on an IRE game, I can attest to the fact that it is in no way easy to please players, but it IS easy to be clear and up front about your intentions and goals.

GealbhanBheag:


I'm sorry, but why should the Admin have to tell us every single little thing they do or are going to do? There would be no surprises or plot twists. It's their grand vision after all. Yes, we as players are important, but we can't dictate their actions. We can make suggestions which they may or may not put into use. It would be like an audience member storming on stage in the middle of a performance and grabbing their instruments and saying 'No, no, no, this is how it's done and can't be done any other way'.

The issue is that often the changes are things that we should know about and sometimes transparency can prevent player disappointment.

Enyalida:

I think he's talking more about mechanical changes, not plot/story changes! I kind of have to agree, to some extent. A lot of times when a big new mechanic comes out of nowhere there are problems with it that a player would be able to recognize better than an admin, as we more often face the 'realities' of how code works out in practice.

I've got awhole bunch more to say, but don't want to say it until I have a coherent post. I just wanted to point out how I read that statement.

I believe the best example is the family system, which felt like the players discussed what they wanted on the forums, the admin went into the cone of silence, and came out with something that the players did not enjoy nor did it reflect the initial discussion. Transparency would have allowed for us to try to call for changes before development rather than afterwards.

I wasn't talking about events or actual plots but in general terms. And the analogy was just that, a general analogy, nothing literal.

Edit: Also, we're lucky to even have an envoy sytem or that they'll consider our input at all. With other games that announce upcoming huge changes/patch content, it's mostly a done deal. You can either get hyped or hate the changes and live with it if you decide to stay. And, the game is technically free still, the buyer just chooses if they want perks.

Briefly:

-forcing players about is like forcing customers about. It is far easier to get wrong than it is to get right. This applies to whole new mechanics, and it applies to forcing political change in the game.

-Envoys is frustrating, because it is nice when it is there to address a problem and done well, but too often, it is a case of "have slot must use!" or "For lack of anything better to envoy, I'll try and ram through a new skill of buff for everyone to code/deal with!" I don't have a better solution that wouldn't have its own set of issues.

Rainydays:

Briefly:

-forcing players about is like forcing customers about. It is far easier to get wrong than it is to get right. This applies to whole new mechanics, and it applies to forcing political change in the game.

-Envoys is frustrating, because it is nice when it is there to address a problem and done well, but too often, it is a case of "have slot must use!" or "For lack of anything better to envoy, I'll try and ram through a new skill of buff for everyone to code/deal with!" I don't have a better solution that wouldn't have its own set of issues.

My impression is that the natural state of this game should be no alliances, everyone is looking out for themselves. The issue is that the current state of the game means that alliances are pretty much all gain and no detriment. If an alliance actually restricted you from doing something beneficial for you this changes considerations.

Alliances do restrain you from doing some beneficial things for yourself; it's just that those same beneficial effects can be achieved by other means without irking your 'friends'.

Xenthos:

Alliances do restrain you from doing some beneficial things for yourself; it's just that those same beneficial effects can be achieved by other means without irking your 'friends'.

Cool, the only real things that come to mind are hunting cosmic/ethereal entities and is that really such a terrible restriction?

Saran:


Cool, the only real things that come to mind are hunting cosmic/ethereal entities and is that really such a terrible restriction?

Hunting cosmic for power, or capturing the Ethereal ones to bind them for power. Certain quests are highly frowned upon and can strain relationships (such as, say, XI or Soulforge).

Saran:


My impression is that the natural state of this game should be no alliances, everyone is looking out for themselves. The issue is that the current state of the game means that alliances are pretty much all gain and no detriment. If an alliance actually restricted you from doing something beneficial for you this changes considerations.

I feel like the game was designed with semi-formal alliances in mind to be required. I agree that it'd be nice to have every man for himself in a way, when you have more than two organizations, that sort of gameplay falls apart. I've always been a big fan of the three org system with revolving alliances, but again, Lusternia was designed with concrete enemies as well, for the most part.

I'll be the evil admin that will say that if you expect us to announce that we're planning on releasing new cities, guilds, archetypes, systems of conflicts, or are planning new skillsets, reduxing old systems, and then expect to lay it out for the masses to critique and comment on before we put it in (which is precisely what several of you are asking for!), the answer is an unequivocal 'no'.

And, as an addendum, merely to reiterate - the playerbase hasn't taken a 'nose dive' - sorry!

Eventru:

I'll be the evil admin that will say that if you expect us to announce that we're planning on releasing new cities, guilds, archetypes, systems of conflicts, or are planning new skillsets, reduxing old systems, and then expect to lay it out for the masses to critique and comment on before we put it in (which is precisely what several of you are asking for!), the answer is an unequivocal 'no'.

I'll be the evil forum user and say that your response with no reasoning or explanation is why we think it's important for the admin to do exactly this.

To be frank, the track record of the administration is sub-par, in my opinion. I felt, and still feel, that the Lusternian administration can't be left to their own devices because they deliver mediocre products with minimal to no testing or feedback from a large population. Any game developing company worth their salt would tell you how important Quality Assurance teams are.

I'm simply astonished that you would speak for the entire administrative staff with such a flippant and offhand dismissal of something that is being legitimately discussed with a, seemingly, positive response. It just reeks of indifference and disrespect - which is what I've personally always thought of the interaction between staff and players in Lusternia.

Things in the coding area have been really good over the last couple of months, and there's been a lot more Admin -> (subset of player) Envoy interaction which has allowed for better understanding of what is going on and why.

Xenthos:

Things in the coding area have been really good over the last couple of months, and there's been a lot more Admin -> (subset of player) Envoy interaction which has allowed for better understanding of what is going on and why.

That's legitimately good to hear. I always had such high hopes for Lusternia. Of all the games IRE has made, I thought it had the most potential. Going back to EVE and CCP, opening up the window to allow the players to understand their intentions made the players, if not rally behind them, at least nod their heads very strongly in support and come back to the game. I'd count it a victory if Lusternia somehow managed to do the same, but I just can't see it happening with the closed-door policy that seems to dominate everything.

talkans:


I'll be the evil forum user and say that your response with no reasoning or explanation is why we think it's important for the admin to do exactly this.

To be frank, the track record of the administration is sub-par, in my opinion. I felt, and still feel, that the Lusternian administration can't be left to their own devices because they deliver mediocre products with minimal to no testing or feedback from a large population. Any game developing company worth their salt would tell you how important Quality Assurance teams are.

I'm simply astonished that you would speak for the entire administrative staff with such a flippant and offhand dismissal of something that is being legitimately discussed with a, seemingly, positive response. It just reeks of indifference and disrespect - which is what I've personally always thought of the interaction between staff and players in Lusternia.

Call it what you want, I suppose. In a way it is off-handed, because it goes counter to how we manage everything we've done to date, and the request itself seems wildly out of place. It's also fairly off-handed because I've been watching you insult myself, other administrators, and the administration at large pretty virulently.

Time and again we've attempted your proposed 'design by committee' mentality, or 'review by committee of players' as it would be in this instance, and every time it's failed miserably, with casualties like monks, nexus world conflict and more taking quite some time to be put back together. While I recognize that at times we can be distant from the 'nitty gritty' of combat, I've watched time and time again the partisanship of players cloud judgment, even in such bipartisan comittees (see the Aeromancer/Pyromancer reports). While it's nice to believe in the game design equivalent of the Invisible Hand theory, Adam Smith can kick rocks.

Every time I've seen it attempted in Lusternia, the effort was viewed as a pretty disappointing failure - even when we say, "Well, okay, give them what they want" (again, see Aeromancer/Pyromancer reports). I doubt you'll convince me otherwise by pointing to EVE/CCP, of which my knowledge of is only cursory (and as I recall, a lot of the problems resulted from the administration blatantly attempting to bilk players out of their money).

Eventru:


Call it what you want, I suppose. In a way it is off-handed, because it goes counter to how we manage everything we've done to date, and the request itself seems wildly out of place. It's also fairly off-handed because I've been watching you insult myself, other administrators, and the administration at large pretty virulently.

Time and again we've attempted your proposed 'design by committee' mentality, or 'review by committee of players' as it would be in this instance, and every time it's failed miserably, with casualties like monks, nexus world conflict and more taking quite some time to be put back together. While I recognize that at times we can be distant from the 'nitty gritty' of combat, I've watched time and time again the partisanship of players cloud judgment, even in such bipartisan comittees (see the Aeromancer/Pyromancer reports). While it's nice to believe in the game design equivalent of the Invisible Hand theory, Adam Smith can kick rocks.

First of all, if criticizing you harshly is insulting, then you can expect more. Frankly, you deserve some brutal and truthful critiquing.

Secondly, I'm not speaking about a 'design by committee' structure at all. I've specifically mentioned that the type of transparency I'm speaking about doesn't revolve around the "nitty gritty" of combat. That's what the envoys are for, and I'm not speaking about that process. If you can't understand how a clear, open, truthful policy regarding future goals is helpful and good for the community, I probably can't convince you of it through the forums.

I think that this is another really good reason why the population has dwindled, and I can say that it effected me. Why play a game when the admin think they know better than you what's fun and good for the game than the people who are playing and paying for it? Why play if the amin aren't willing to listen to the players' input on future goals? It doesn't make sense to do so to me. I hope it doesn't to any other player as well, because, really, you're not getting your money's worth at that point.