Celenwilde is totally an old name, back when Serenwilde and Celest were allied for like, 3 years (barring hiccups here and there). This discussion regarding alliances is almost exactly the discussion then, when Celenwilde was dominating and Glom-Mag were only uneasily friends because of necessity.

The point is, things managed to shake up. Granted, it took a pretty huge event (HG/XI), which the winners deemed zomg cool, and the losers deemed zomg forced RP I hate the admins raaah.

Shaking alliances up won't do what you guys hope it will do simply because in the aftermath, there will still be winners and losers.

Eh, personally I would like if alliances actually shifted semi-constantly. But yes, I realize it won't actually happen for the reasons I gave.

Well, that's just a difference of opinion. I have friends in other allied orgs and I'd rather keep them, for example!

Eventru:

Speaking from personal experience, events that force players to 're-evaluate' their alliances end with bitterness on behalf of players, and a lot of angst of admin 'forcing' things and taking away 'player-controlled politics' and all of the usual suspects, in terms of complaints and gripes. Having been on this side for several, I can say that it would take a lot of cajoling to get me to design, plan, prep and run an event that intentionally runs a schism between Celest/Glomdoring or Celest/Gaudiguch or Seren/Mag or (etc etc), with the intention of making them contemplate changing sides.

I'm incredibly surprised to see you write this. I'm glad you've changed your opinion, because I agree that admin interaction which forces players to do something that they didn't initiate is usually a bad thing. However, I remember that you specifically raised a shrine through Talkan on Ethereal having coordinated with Charune and a Glomdoring god - Nocht? Viravain? I don't remember which - to have it destroyed, all the while telling your order to defend it with your lives because your character had decided to suddenly protect Ethereal. This was done in an attempt to cut Magnagora some slack, as they were being beaten somewhat regularly by New Celest. I was infuriated, because as a character, I had no choice but to obey.

AquaNeos:

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.

In theory that works fine, but in practice, we see that it doesn't. There is a level of personal skill involved in the combat of Lusternia, so that if you give an organization an equal number of fighters using equal levels of in-game abilities and using the same system, one side will still (generally) win more often than the other, simply because one side is actually better. No matter how much effort you put in, if you're not a good combatant, you generally won't become one if you've already met the pre-requisites for combat.

What this means is that you can't simply tell a losing side to try harder. But, Lusternia is in a really weird position. You don't actually lose much by not winning, so why do people get so frustrated? Well, speaking from experience, it's mainly just aggravating banging your head against the wall over and over, despite the fact that you're not slipping further down the proverbial slope of success by losing a fight in Nil.

Often times, in a game that's focused around PvP, the losers are given something for a reward, although at a smaller rate than the winners. This is already in place in Lusternia, really, so it's not a situation of being unable to gain anything like power or commoties.

Someone also mentioned (I believe it may have been the same person) a system where people who are winning very often have a higher hill to climb than those who are losing, and this could be implemented in some degree - villages, mainly - the definition of 'winning' and 'losing' is so loosely defined in Lusternia. Generally, a losing side doesn't actually lose ANYTHING except fights. Peaced villages made it possible for an organization that isn't terribly great at fighting to still sway control, so how do you come up with a system of not only determining what counts towards a win and a loss, but how do you decide what size "hill" an organization must climb to conquer...what exactly? It just doesn't work very well in the Lusternian game play system.

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.

There seems to be some confusion about what transparency and feedback are, so I want to clear the issue up:

When myself and other people have talked about Lusternian administration having a lack of clarity and a very closed-door policy, this does NOT refer to your ability to keep a finger on the pulse of the forum feedback and complaints. This refers to your willingness to treat your players with respect in regards to their wishes for future updates, plans, goals, and objectives that you have for the game. This is a preemptive strategy.

Feedback is when you listen to players speak, discuss, complain, argue, and shout about things AFTER they have already been done. Usually, this is instigated by the player base, but if the administration asks for feedback, it would fall under this category as well.

No one is saying that the hearing of feeback has been sub-par. I've personally praised the envoy system in its current form saying that it seems to have vastly improved from when I remember it.

We are saying that you are unwilling to be transparent. The outright refusal leads to more suspicion and anger than anything. And the fact that it's been spoken of in pretty fair light on this thread by a handful of players, yet you still refuse to even consider or explain your reasons for rejecting it is absolutely unprofessional, inconsiderate, and is exactly the sort of reaction we expect from you at this point.

Apologize all you want, Mr. French, the fact is, you're not willing to even act like you're considering something that people seem to want, and pouting about how we've (or maybe just me) have hurt your feelings because, by golly, you try so hard! isn't going to win you any pity points from me.

The post above was going well up until the last sentence.

I don't understand the need to be condescending. It didn't need low blows to make its point.

Sojiro:

The post above was going well up until the last paragraph.

I'm nothing if not consistent.

Speaking for myself: I have not logged as much time as I have / played as long as I have because I 'hate the game' (or think it is a 'poor product' or whatever other way of saying it may be found).

I love the game. I love the interaction I get from the Gods, I especially <3 the events I spend way too much time following instead of sleeping (you know who you are, Gray Warden event runner), I love / like (most of) the people.

Could there be a better job on the Administration side? Yes. I've been hammering on the 'better PR' button for years now. :P Lusternia goes through periods where there is a great presence and a lot of interaction which helps keep the playerbase happy, and periods where there is essentially a 'black hole' and we get nothing. Excepting Eventru, who is kind of hit and miss as a lone PR voice. We are not at this stage at present. We are in an upswing, and on the whole I think things are okay (I won't say it's exceptional across the board, but there are definitely some areas that I would say are exceptional as far as customer support goes now!).

In regards to Estarra's idea about asking admin to post less:
One Admin should not be expected to be the lone PR voice, trying to keep away the circling wolves! Because, well, that's kind of what happens, especially when there's a certain sense of humour which sometimes comes out at the most inopportune times.

Lusternia does not need less admin posting on the forums, it needs more. The more, the better. When the people on the other end are never seen and never heard from, it's too easy to see them as faceless, nameless beings lording over all of Creation from atop their pedestals who do not care one iota for the playerbase. We know that this is not true, but a lack of interaction leaves an impression, which is all that I can think of that Talkan and Sahmiam are referring to...

... because, well, Lusternia's a great game.

The two of you are massively over-reacting and are just doing more damage than good. I am having difficulty getting through your posts without shaking my head, and Estarra knows how many disagreements I've had with her over the years on various policies / decisions.

BTW, if someone wants to go on a crusade against the admin of Lusternia, you can do it elsewhere than on these forums. Yes, maybe this is an example of my unreasonableness but, really, you can only prod me so much.

Eh, the remaking of the Family System was mainly a result of player requests. While some (Saran) are averse to it, I have to say that I am personally a fan. So it's just a matter of opinion.

I am also averse to having 'winning' orgs be punished by making it harder for them to succeed. It's already been stated that losing orgs don't actually loose too much.

(And, really, there are already many checks to winning orgs. Can't own opposing domoths, opposite villages hate each other, succeeding in more things like aetherspace, villages, domoths mean you have to maintain more things, etc.)

Xenthos:

The two of you are massively over-reacting and are just doing more damage than good. I am having difficulty getting through your posts without shaking my head, and Estarra knows how many disagreements I've had with her over the years on various policies / decisions.

I don't think I'm overreacting: I actually took a step back and put my personal issues aside when composing those two posts. I'm also curious how I'm doing more damage than good: I'm bringing issues that I believe to be very important to light, and while they may not be pretty or sound good, if addressed, the game would be great, both in concept and implementation. Trying to understand your side of things, I fail to see how I'm doing any damage except by making others aware that problems (may) exist.

Again, I reiterate that I understand that perfection isn't possible and that mistakes will happen. But why should I settle for mediocre when I see how absolutely amazing this game could be?

I really don't understand people who equate always winning with fun.

I think this is a great attitude to have. There can be a lot of fun to be had in being the underdog. As a player, and on other games, some of the most fun I've had was while being on the "losing" side. That being said, if being on top is how you have fun in Lusternia, this wouldn't work, but I don't think that's the case for most of our players.

I see a lot of complaints about combat having no meaning, but I'm not sure how we can address that. What could be done on the admin side? Some mentioned a war system, but how would you see that implemented so it can encourage meaningful conflict without turning into bashing a weaker org over and over for a mechanical bonus?

I'm going to close this thread as it has ranged far beyond what the topic initially was. However, I encourage you to start new topics on specific issues that may have been raised here which you wish to elaborate on.

I think one misconception is that I read every post on the forums. Alas, that is not true! I usually read the first post and then skim around if the thread is long, and maybe something catches my eye which I think is important and then respond to it. However, it seems I often get blamed for ignoring certain points or ideas when the truth is that I may not have read them, which then sparks indignant posts and we spiral downwards from there. So my suggestion is if you feel there is something important for the admin to look at, to start a new topic and lay out your points civilly and in a constructive manner. If you let your point, which you may think is and may very well be important, become lost in a growing and meandering thread, don't be surprised if there is not an admin response!