I understand that, and still feel that long term alliances and eneies are unhealthy for the playerbase; they lead to much resentment and inappropriate lashing out (a la delete Illums/Choke).

foolofsound:

I really don't understand people who equate always winning with fun. When I play offline games, particularly 1v1 games, if I find myself repeatedly winning, I will progressivly handicap myself until the game is sufficiently challenging that I lose as often as a win, if not more so. I find coming up from behind and overcoming hardship more fun that blasting my opposition every time it comes to conflict and sitting on my big pile of victories until my opponent quits.

Think about it this way: If Enyalida and I are playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and I repeatedly win, to the point that she gets not a single significant hit on me for several matches straight, how long do you really think she is going to continue playing with me? On the othe hand, if I choose a weaker character, and perhaps allow her to choose stages that benefit her playstyle, and she wins something around 40% of the games, how long do you think we are going to pay then? The answer is longer. The same holds true for Lusternia, on a larger scale. How long do you think players who repeatedly lose in every important conflict are going to keep playing?

From personal experience I know my side doesn't always win. We've had big losses, and 90% of the time we learn from it and get better(DL raids used to end horribly, but we learned). I don't consider losing to be fun, though I do learn from what I did wrong, I find winning to be fun. I'm gonna do everything in my power to win, and my opponent/enemy should be doing the same, if I put more effort in, that's not my fault and it shouldn't be something that the admin should have to interject in to change.

I have a Celest alt, and I heard a lot of whispered mutterings by people in the city who do not like the alliance with Glomdoring. There were even complaints over CT about wyrd on Celestia when Glom was helping defend against a raid by Mag. There is a low-simmering anti-Glom sentiment present in Celest, but...I dunno...people might be worried that breaking rank will get them in trouble, or maybe they're scared Glom will beat them into the ground.

I'll admit, I ig hate a number of Glom chars, Alac amongst them because he killed my turtle. :(

I have a Celest alt, and I heard a lot of whispered mutterings by people in the city who do not like the alliance with Glomdoring. There were even complaints over CT about wyrd on Celestia when Glom was helping defend against a raid by Mag. There is a low-simmering anti-Glom sentiment present in Celest, but...I dunno...people might be worried that breaking rank will get them in trouble, or maybe they're scared Glom will beat them into the ground.

And I know there are quite a few Serens who would rather not be allied with us Taintlings. I think the real problem is that many of the combatant players enjoy winning more than an actual challenge or roleplay, and want to preserve alliances that continue to allow them to win, not ones that have strong narrative justification.

I like and dislike people from every org. It's more of an issue of how many more influential people in org A are snuggly with those from org B, in my opinion.

Ixion:

I like and dislike people from every org. It's more of an issue of how many more influential people in org A are snuggly with those from org B, in my opinion.

I hate Ixion ic, because he's such a griefer, but he's a cool guy ooc most times.

I think that what Talkan said rings true, and it's disheartening the stance that others have taken in response. It possibly could have been presented better, but presentation doesn't affect the truth value.

I won't deny that I criticize the administration frequently, nor that I present myself poorly. I did try the professional approach, the polite approach, and I got it shoved down my throat.

Estarra has amazed me quite a few times and sadly, disappointed me many others. I realize that I can't expect to be happy all the time, but where once I was a happily paying customer, I've taken a no-pay stance. I don't consider myself a customer to Lusternia any longer, and the main reason is because I realized that I was never treated like one. Coincidentally, things did work out, but looking back, I feel cheated.


Things Lusternia could improve on:

- There is no consistent combat balance philosophy. Someone pointed out that Lusternia is unique in that the players have a say in balance, and they are wrong. Guild Wars, one of the best PVP games I have played regularly consulted the top tier players. League of Legends does this as well by having the top players not only input, but play changes months prior to release. Also, it should be pointed out that both games' developers/admins regularly play the game themselves; Lusternia doesn't allow this, so they need the envoys to get some perspective. League has the concept of "fun" and "not-fun." This philosophy is currently incompatible with Lusternia, but it's a prime example of good game design.
- Openness. There is no better way to create high-quality than being open with how things work mechanically. Formulas, numbers, stats, etc. Everything mechanical should be open and available for review, because then players and admin can readily identify problems and suggest exact changes. Additionally, feedback preempts implementation which prevents having to redo or fix anything. And it's important to note that this is regarding mechanics, not plot, and not even quests. I also will disagree with Estarra in that ruining the surprise is worse than being surprised by a low-quality, non-working release.
- Attitude. People aren't perfect, and even I need to step back and realize this. However, the responses, especially from Eventru, in this thread, are exactly what I'm talking about. I know it can be hurtful that someone is criticizing one's on work or asking for more, but that is definitely not the same as being ungrateful or disrespectful. PR goes a long way, and that is something the Lusternian administration lacks. Responses like "Your bitter is hanging out" should never be uttered by a professional, and while it resulted in some lulz, even from myself, it only furthered my disappointment in expecting anything of quality. Talkan was not insulting and that type of input is exactly what any game developers should fear, yet respect and take the most seriously. He wasn't trolling, and he presented it professionally. Giving counter examples or ignoring his input is disheartening to see from my perspective, a mostly-retired player and ex-customer.

Lusternia as a game is great. It has an amazing, engaging story and plot, and even though I often criticize (or even rage) at Estarra, this is one aspect that I can truly say she has done well and I have no complaints in. In fact, if I ever started my own game development company and Estarra applied to be creative director, she'd be hired.

However, Lusternia is a poor product, and it is this fact that has alienated myself and many other players. It's not the stagnation or the lack of meaningful content or anything else. It's the experience from playing the game, not the experience playing the game.

Regarding combat balance, that has always been the bugaboo that plagues all MUDs. I do think we are open to constructive input and we have made changes and tweaks based on that input. I do believe the envoy system works, whatever imperfections there are, and it is by definition getting input from top players. While I agree there are benefits of admin being players, it is simply not feasible in a small community (not to mention a restriction from IRE for all their games based on experience when admin were players).

I simply disagree that certain code should be made available for inspection. When it is appropriate, we may reveal numbers but otherwise I don't believe it would be constructive to do what I think you are suggesting. As for having people test some releases beforehand, as I said before, it is difficult enough getting people to go to a test server, much less rigorously testing for months. We simply don't have the numbers or resources of some of the big games you've mentioned to make that work.

I know there are those who despise me or have no respect for me or think I don't know what I'm doing. I think the old adage that "you can't please all the people all the time" applies here. Truly, I am sorry if you think I don't listen and have a bad attitude. I apologize if I've said or done anything that may have had alienated anyone or if it's come across that I've thrown something in your face--I'm certainly not perfect but believe personal growth and improvement is an ongong process. As for what a volunteer may have expressed, that is the opinion of the volunteer. I have allowed them (mostly) to post on the forums. Years ago, there was a debate about whether volunteers should post at all and many players have said they'd prefer volunteers to interact on the forums freely but maybe it is something we should review.

I'd rather all gods post freely on the forums, makes them more approachable and gives players a healthy dose of 'gods are people too' before they inevitably launch into a tirade about how x god should just die.

I also agree that there is a pretty large and monetary difference between guild wars, WoW, etc. and Lusternia. There just isn't enough people / money for millions of dollars' worth of playtesting.

The alliances are certainly far from being 'comfortable' - I know Alacardael, IG, is still looking for a way to b-slap Japhiel for working with Nifilhema during HG/XI. But then we look at the other orgs...Serenwilde (zomg traitorzzz), Magnagora (zomg, Nifilhema), and Hallifax (zomg, whine whine whine)...and at the end of the day, we think, 'lesser of evils'.

TBH, I was pretty sure Kelly was going to break up with us right before prom Ascension. I know she thought about it (with good reason). Good thing for Xynthin we look good in a tux, I guess. None of the alliances are completely rock-solid... as I've said before, they're just familiar at this point.

Estarra:

Regarding combat balance, that has always been the bugaboo that plagues all MUDs. I do think we are open to constructive input and we have made changes and tweaks based on that input. I do believe the envoy system works, whatever imperfections there are, and it is by definition getting input from top players. While I agree there are benefits of admin being players, it is simply not feasible in a small community (not to mention a restriction from IRE for all their games based on experience when admin were players).

I simply disagree that certain code should be made available for inspection. When it is appropriate, we may reveal numbers but otherwise I don't believe it would be constructive to do what I think you are suggesting. As for having people test some releases beforehand, as I said before, it is difficult enough getting people to go to a test server, much less rigorously testing for months. We simply don't have the numbers or resources of some of the big games you've mentioned to make that work.

I know there are those who despise me or have no respect for me or think I don't know what I'm doing. I think the old adage that "you can't please all the people all the time" applies here. Truly, I am sorry if you think I don't listen and have a bad attitude. I apologize if I've said or done anything that may have had alienated anyone or if it's come across that I've thrown something in your face--I'm certainly not perfect but believe personal growth and improvement is an ongong process. As for what a volunteer may have expressed, that is the opinion of the volunteer. I have allowed them (mostly) to post on the forums. Years ago, there was a debate about whether volunteers should post at all and many players have said they'd prefer volunteers to interact on the forums freely but maybe it is something we should review.

And here is an instance where I'm appreciative of your reply and my respect for you grows.

To address some points:

I understand that IRE can't allow the admins to play and I understand the reasoning behind it. It's an option that is simply not available, and I'm not faulting anyone for it. However, I think things such as the infamous "4th solution" should never happen because the players see the problems in a completely different manner than the administration does. This was a problem when I was envoy, and to the admin's credit, envoys at least sound like it's a better process from what little I listen to.

I agree that code shouldn't be disclosed. It's intellectually property, after all, but it's important to differentiate between the code and what the code does. I can tell you with high certainty that many, many balance issues would be solved rapidly and without much manpower if players could crunch the numbers themselves. Just look at all the good that came from revealing the amount of DMP from skills: people have numbers to use when they talk about balancing and they can predict exactly how much DMP a person will have under certain circumstances. Even if it's convoluted in the code, having someone sift through it to create the formula and then maintain it...it may actually result in less changes and less coding in the long run.

My point about the big games was less to say that Lusternia should do that, but to point out that the concept of envoys is not unique. A big difference that Lusternia can't have is that the "pros" inform the admin-players and that they're able to speak the same language. Here, again, I think it's important to emphasize this inherent problem with the setup and recommend against the "we know better than you" attitude or "fourth solution." Again, to your credit, the one time we discussed Hyperactive on envoys was very helpful. Infinitely better than someone posting a report with three solutions and having them all rejected. The problem doesn't go away, and it's a month wasted, whereas a direct line of communication is far more efficient.

Above paragraph being what it is, a suggestion for envoys: have it be two steps from the administrative level: whether to accept or reject the report. If the report is rejected, then question whether the problem is indeed a problem, and if it is, open up some dialogue on how to fix it and do so. It is more work on the admin this way, but if it happened, even I'd be hard-pressed to not respect the effort.

Don't conflate 'admin' with any one staff member of developer. Ever action, whether a volunteer god or yourself, speaks for the group as a hole. I love it when the admin post, but I think that some guidelines need to be reviewed. Snide remarks, for example, will always be interpreted as unprofessional while joking around and being casual will be seen as being cool. Meta-level issues (such as this thread, combat balance over envoys, etc.) shouldn't be handled by the volunteers or even commented on, at least not in a manner that can be seen as speaking for the admins. I'm a Raezon fan-boy, but I don't want him commenting about Celestian/Gaudian/Glomdoring skill reports at all, except to point out misinformation or bad assumptions.

I respect what the volunteers contribute to the game, but I will use Nocht as an example (nothing against you, Nocht!). I believe that the heart of this thread, especially the issues Talkan raised, has little to nothing to do with what the volunteers do, nor do I think he was being ungrateful. Nocht replying, calling his posts insulting, was...misplaced. A bad analogy would be a baseball player getting offended and thinking a reporting is insulting the player's batting, when the reporter is criticizing the coach.

I do think that the issues and suggestions I gave can be adopted without compromising the overall ideals of Lusternia. A balancing philosophy would go a long way, and as far as I can tell, "uniqueness/flavorful" is the only one I can identify. Monks would be infinitely easier to balance if they had some consistency to them, and I know that one of the largest complaints has been the shared tertiary skills. Each guild has its own philosophy to it, and sadly, they often are contrary to other guilds that share the same skills or archetype.

Talan:

TBH, I was pretty sure Kelly was going to break up with us right before prom Ascension.

Yeah, I was kind of surprised too.

Regarding alliances, we can't forget that Everyone Is On The Moral Highground, which makes it difficult to want to make a move that will look like anything other than an upset at everyone else who was clearly undermining/backstabbing you to begin with. Maintaining Moral Highground also feeds back into the general comfortable nature of the alliances.

foolofsound:

Think about it this way: If Enyalida and I are playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and I repeatedly win, to the point that she gets not a single significant hit on me for several matches straight, how long do you really think she is going to continue playing with me?

I love me some new pork city.


Anyway, I find myself agreeing (to the letter) with everything Sahmiam has said in his recent posts to this thread, and without rehashing everything, I'd like to express my support for the opinions he expressed and the possible solutions he suggested.

I especially am head-nodding to comments about bad PR and issues with '4th solutions' that get handed down from above, as well as implementation of mechanics that make players scratch their head (and subsequent refusal to even talk about it). Having reports feel like less of a crapshoot (don't get me started on recent policy) will go a long way to easing tension among Envoys, which will trickle down and out into their guilds in general as fixes to skills go through more smoothly.

Yeah, I was kind of surprised too.

Regarding alliances, we can't forget that Everyone Is On The Moral Highground, which makes it difficult to want to make a move that will look like anything other than an upset at everyone else who was clearly undermining/backstabbing you to begin with. Maintaining Moral Highground also feeds back into the general comfortable nature of the alliances.


Eh, its less about moral highgrounds, and more about the fear of getting curbstomped by formal allies. The last time an org switched alliances (hallifax) they took :censor: not only IG, but on the forums. I'm not sure any (sane) person would likely want to go through that again unless they thought they would "win" as a result. And nobody that's "winning" particularly wants to shake up things to side with the "losers".

I've no real comment on the other dialogue with admin, but on the alliance side - minor tensions aside, long-term engrained alliances are here to stay, and its a shame. Even if by some miracle things do get changed around, that new alliance will be the norm for years to come.

Edit: Also its way easier to just keep things at status quo, and that's another huge factor. Not many players particularly want to fight for huge changes to shake things up.

Yeah, I was kind of surprised too.

Regarding alliances, we can't forget that Everyone Is On The Moral Highground, which makes it difficult to want to make a move that will look like anything other than an upset at everyone else who was clearly undermining/backstabbing you to begin with. Maintaining Moral Highground also feeds back into the general comfortable nature of the alliances.


There can only be one Moral Highlander.

Turnus:

Edit: Also its way easier to just keep things at status quo, and that's another huge factor. Not many players particularly want to fight for huge changes to shake things up.

Yep, and in the end there isn't anything OOC or IC to actually gain from switching around, it's not like you're going to get any better at doing anything worth while. You might be stronger on raids, but no one has really raided for a long long time, just lots of hit and runs or little spats over people jumping non-comms.

Oh well. Nothing to gain but silly new names, my mistake :P . Anyways, we'd have a hard time allying with Celest, we were burned pretty bad ages ago with the entire Jazella thing...