Unknown2012-01-26 00:09:05
I didn't think there was anything wrong with Weakenings the way they were. C'est la vie.
Xenthos2012-01-26 02:05:00
Kialkarkea:
I didn't think there was anything wrong with Weakenings the way they were. C'est la vie.
There was one thing massively wrong with them.
When a construct was destroyed it could not be rebuilt for 30 real-life days. Mechanical limitation.
Llandros2012-01-26 02:37:59
At one point Mag's finances got a litle neglected and all our constructs were destroyed when there wasn't enough money in that appropriate account to cover their upkeep.
While it was our fault, that was a particularly large boatload of suck.
While it was our fault, that was a particularly large boatload of suck.
Unknown2012-01-26 07:37:17
Constructs also became something 'required', even though the Admin's original intent was that they were just add-ons and bonuses. So when orgs lost one or two, it was seen as a crippling blow.
Enyalida2012-01-26 09:36:20
They still are pretty required, at least each org's uber-construct. A commune without an altar up would be a totally different place.
Unknown2012-01-26 09:42:17
Eventru:
I can't think of a reasonable manner in which to enforce 'team limits' in group PvP (raids on territories, domoths, etc). Can you?
I'll admit it's difficult to do without making things seem artificial. But most other MMOs have done it and the pros outweighed the cons. We've pretty much all played WoW, would Warsong Gulch and Arathi Basin have been any good if the teams weren't the same size?
I've always felt that while it's difficult, Lusternia is the best positioned of the IRE games to make a change here. The line between a "battleground" and a "plane" or "aetherbubble" or (whatever else you guys come up with) is probably not all that hard to walk here. I would feel bad for Imperian trying to do it though.
Basically, you could say something like, each plane is different, but they can only hold so many people from the material plane at a time before it starts coughing people up, and those with an affinity to the plane get to have a guaranteed number there. So a partial solution would be like having a max of 20 people (though I would make it even fewer), 10 of which are guaranteed to have an affinity to the plane (the defenders).
You could keep this from being gamed and let people still go to the plane individually by having a system of declared raids, sort of like a large-scale avenger system. There would be no announcement, but once a raid is declared, non-raiders and non-defenders get forcefully removed from the plane to make room for a raiding group. This would help to cover a possible loophole of having third parties trying to game the numbers cap.
As for might brackets, the lowest level of the elemental planes seem geared towards new players, but anyone with five years and $5k of investment can go there and stomp on some newbie who has spent no money. You could make planes have a limit on how much power in the prime material sense that they can sustain, and put diminishing returns or a flat cap on the power of artifacts, might levels, etc. in open-PK areas that are geared towards new players. So Malarius (or whoever the raider of the month is right now) could go there, but he would be fighting on closer to the level of the people he's attacking.
As an example, let's say Magnagora is failing pretty hard and can only field 5 low might people. But the lowest level of the earth plane means you can only raid with 5 people at a time of comparative might. Magnagora would lose everything else, all their other planes (what else is new?) but if those 5 people were dedicated and skilled, they could successfully defend at least one level of one of their planes under such a system. This would give those 5 people an incentive to become stronger because they will have high morale upon winning and want to defend more planes. Once they notch a legitimate win, they will decide that with more might they might be able to notch more wins, and I would expect that to help things to pick up in Lusternia going forward.
Eventru2012-01-26 12:00:50
Jello:
I'll admit it's difficult to do without making things seem artificial. But most other MMOs have done it and the pros outweighed the cons. We've pretty much all played WoW, would Warsong Gulch and Arathi Basin have been any good if the teams weren't the same size?
Your references are lost on me. I appreciated the storyline of Warcraft too much to play WoW. (And I had an addiction to FFXI.)
I've always felt that while it's difficult, Lusternia is the best positioned of the IRE games to make a change here. The line between a "battleground" and a "plane" or "aetherbubble" or (whatever else you guys come up with) is probably not all that hard to walk here. I would feel bad for Imperian trying to do it though.
Basically, you could say something like, each plane is different, but they can only hold so many people from the material plane at a time before it starts coughing people up, and those with an affinity to the plane get to have a guaranteed number there. So a partial solution would be like having a max of 20 people (though I would make it even fewer), 10 of which are guaranteed to have an affinity to the plane (the defenders).
You could keep this from being gamed and let people still go to the plane individually by having a system of declared raids, sort of like a large-scale avenger system. There would be no announcement, but once a raid is declared, non-raiders and non-defenders get forcefully removed from the plane to make room for a raiding group. This would help to cover a possible loophole of having third parties trying to game the numbers cap.
Wouldn't I then just be able to flood the plane with defenders? Newbies a-gogo, so to speak. Also note that you probably wouldn't be too happy with the caps - were there a cap, I'd personally be thinking something along the lines of 30 v 30 - the Supernals are intended to be taken down by large groups (~20 people). Anything less and people won't be able to defend, making people feel like they shouldn't so that stronger people can.
As for might brackets, the lowest level of the elemental planes seem geared towards new players, but anyone with five years and $5k of investment can go there and stomp on some newbie who has spent no money. You could make planes have a limit on how much power in the prime material sense that they can sustain, and put diminishing returns or a flat cap on the power of artifacts, might levels, etc. in open-PK areas that are geared towards new players. So Malarius (or whoever the raider of the month is right now) could go there, but he would be fighting on closer to the level of the people he's attacking.
As an example, let's say Magnagora is failing pretty hard and can only field 5 low might people. But the lowest level of the earth plane means you can only raid with 5 people at a time of comparative might. Magnagora would lose everything else, all their other planes (what else is new?) but if those 5 people were dedicated and skilled, they could successfully defend at least one level of one of their planes under such a system. This would give those 5 people an incentive to become stronger because they will have high morale upon winning and want to defend more planes. Once they notch a legitimate win, they will decide that with more might they might be able to notch more wins, and I would expect that to help things to pick up in Lusternia going forward.
I don't think level caps are a particularly exciting feature in MMOs, and often found them immensely frustrating when they were capped too low (I still get twitches a the thought of doing mannequin bit runs and being capped at painful low levels, far below where I'd grinded to on nearly every class; no thanks!).
Unknown2012-01-26 14:27:54
Personally, I don't see how small victories are any better than crushing defeat at imbuing someone with the dedication to be better. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that crushing defeat is a better motivator, since you 1) look closer for anything that you could have done better so that you could survive better the next time, and 2) you're pulled into the correct perspective that your enemies are vastly more powerful; you have to learn how to work with that, and in doing so, learn farther they they have.
There are invaluable lessons to be taken from fighting a skewed fight (heavily not in your favor). And no, Night Choke would actually be counterproductive.
Cue OldSerenwilderX to say that Glomdoring has never experienced what Serenwilde is experiencing now.
There are invaluable lessons to be taken from fighting a skewed fight (heavily not in your favor). And no, Night Choke would actually be counterproductive.
Cue OldSerenwilderX to say that Glomdoring has never experienced what Serenwilde is experiencing now.
Chade2012-01-26 15:03:46
Have to admit, my favourite IG fight since returning was the one on Nil yesterday. Four of us went up, I got pretty much stomped and in the end two died and two escaped. Came back with a bigger group although still smaller than the one we were fighting against, shrine powers went up and it was a pretty close fought fight. I almost died multiple times but just managed to escape, we didn't have a decisive victory but we also didn't have a decisive defeat either.
Unknown2012-01-26 16:14:39
I really thought it was a given that people are encouraged more by victory than by defeat, Chade's example sounding simply like the closest thing to victory Mag may have had recently. But clearly I expected too much in hoping for a consensus on something as basic as "victory over defeat" from Lusternia forum-goers. Even team sizes are simply a basic part of any game, sport or fair and respectable contest in the world. I don't see how you can expect people to have fun in consistently and fundamentally unfair contests.
Lusternia seems to reject a lot of common sense wisdom while building inwardly, with almost no attempts to expand opportunities for new players or the losing sides. A declining playerbase doesn't seem like a mystery to me.
Lusternia seems to reject a lot of common sense wisdom while building inwardly, with almost no attempts to expand opportunities for new players or the losing sides. A declining playerbase doesn't seem like a mystery to me.
Unknown2012-01-26 16:25:48
Personally, I don't see how small victories are any better than crushing defeat at imbuing someone with the dedication to be better. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that crushing defeat is a better motivator, since you 1) look closer for anything that you could have done better so that you could survive better the next time, and 2) you're pulled into the correct perspective that your enemies are vastly more powerful; you have to learn how to work with that, and in doing so, learn farther they they have.
The problem with this is that if an org never has a victory, knowing that your enemy is vastly more powerful and that there is nothing you can do about that is increadibly discouraging. I've all but stopped responding to raids because 1) I don't think that we can win; the raid will just continue until the aggressors get bored and 2) I find large group combat increadibly boring and tedious.
That said, I don't think that these are the issues that are harming new player retention, and I feel that old players quit less often than most people think.
I can't agree with Eventru more that we should not accept an inorganic solution (team size caps, level caps) to the group combat problem. Both reek of divorcing effort from reward. On the other hand, I personally would appreciate changes to group combat to make it less tedious. These changes, however, should take the form of discouragement, rather than forbiddance, in order to allow for more seamless gameplay.
Unknown2012-01-26 16:34:37
Jello:
I really thought it was a given that people are encouraged more by victory than by defeat, Chade's example sounding simply like the closest thing to victory Mag may have had recently. But clearly I expected too much in hoping for a consensus on something as basic as "victory over defeat" from Lusternia forum-goers. Even team sizes are simply a basic part of any game, sport or fair and respectable contest in the world. I don't see how you can expect people to have fun in consistently and fundamentally unfair contests.
Lusternia seems to reject a lot of common sense wisdom while building inwardly, with almost no attempts to expand opportunities for new players or the losing sides. A declining playerbase doesn't seem like a mystery to me.
The victories Glomdoring experiences now are made even more sweeter because if we think back a couple of years ago, we were just everyone's punching bag and fights were stacked against us. If Glomdoring, who has faced at least two instances of potential deletion, can do it, anyone certainly can.
There have been a number of changes already to make sure no one organization is made incredibly powerful. Village feelings and opposing domoths are the two prime examples, since they're a clear indication of a 'winning' org.
Cue Shuyin Factor debate.
foolofsound:
The problem with this is that if an org never has a victory, knowing that your enemy is vastly more powerful and that there is nothing you can do about that is increadibly discouraging. I've all but stopped responding to raids because 1) I don't think that we can win; the raid will just continue until the aggressors get bored and 2) I find large group combat increadibly boring and tedious.
That said, I don't think that these are the issues that are harming new player retention, and I feel that old players quit less often than most people think.
I can't agree with Eventru more that we should not accept an inorganic solution (team size caps, level caps) to the group combat problem. Both reek of divorcing effort from reward. On the other hand, I personally would appreciate changes to group combat to make it less tedious. These changes, however, should take the form of discouragement, rather than forbiddance, in order to allow for more seamless gameplay.
Where have you been recently? Team SerenMagnaFax isn't always losing fights. Everyone experiences victory in some way - villages, domoths, culture, etc. That's the nice thing about Lusternia - there are many avenues and frontiers to play in. People just have this tendency to disregard anything that's not combat-focused.
Unknown2012-01-26 16:53:05
Where have you been recently? Team SerenMagnaFax isn't always losing fights. Everyone experiences victory in some way - villages, domoths, culture, etc. That's the nice thing about Lusternia - there are many avenues and frontiers to play in. People just have this tendency to disregard anything that's not combat-focused.
I was specifically talking about raids in my post; elsewhere things are getting better. I even got my Spike back recently! Raids in particular are really easy thing to get discouraged about, especially when the raid in question has no objective but to hang out on Nil and stir up trouble because they don't have enough people to attempt demon lords. Objectiveless raids really require you keep going up there and, usually, getting killed until the other side gets bored and leaves. I find this particularly disheartening, since we have to keep fighting what is ultimately a persistant annoyance instead of threat to our holdings, and further we must do so with a kind of combat I despise.
Elsewhere, this is less of a problem; there are clear win and loss conditions and a clear reward for success; more of a reward than "They finally left, I can go back to what I was doing.".
Eritheyl2012-01-26 17:05:54
foolofsound:
Elsewhere, this is less of a problem; there are clear win and loss conditions and a clear reward for success; more of a reward than "They finally left, I can go back to what I was doing.".
Can't agree more. Specifically I recall my days in Serenwilde, when all of the Aspects and Ladies would be killed before we could even muster a group of more than three people...and we'd run in like a suicide squad. For absolutely no reason. Moreso stupidity on our part than the raiders being "mean", since we clearly had no reason to try and shoo them away, but meh. Not trying to chase them out ruins morale, but so does running in and dying a good three or so times before you sit back and say, 'Why are we even doing this'.
Unknown2012-01-26 17:06:34
That's because no one really raids unless they have a clear chance at victory. This is not new. There are no true objectives to raid nowadays; they're just avenues of combat / ways to exact revenge on enemy x.
Unknown2012-01-26 17:09:05
The victories Glomdoring experiences now are made even more sweeter because if we think back a couple of years ago, we were just everyone's punching bag and fights were stacked against us. If Glomdoring, who has faced at least two instances of potential deletion, can do it, anyone certainly can.
You've been stomping the competition thanks in part to having greater numbers for years now, and you still aren't tired of it. You won't get tired of it, I think everyone gets that by now. But if Lusternia continues to cater to people like you, it will definitely die. Good PvP is about fair competition, not across years of campaigning, but within each round of the game.
You've been stomping the competition thanks in part to having greater numbers for years now, and you still aren't tired of it. You won't get tired of it, I think everyone gets that by now. But if Lusternia continues to cater to people like you, it will definitely die. Good PvP is about fair competition, not across years of campaigning, but within each round of the game.
Lendren2012-01-26 17:30:21
Jello:
Good PvP is about fair competition, not across years of campaigning, but within each round of the game.
Talan2012-01-26 18:16:19
Okay you win!
What response is there to that? There isn't always even numbers - is either side expected to simply not compete when that is the case? This is a meaningless sentiment when, practically by design, the game does not accomodate "fair competition". I mean this in the sense that many competition events occur at unpredictable times - we can't plan to all put our best foot forward.
My bolded, argument winning sentiment - and mind you, I've actually been playing the game recently, so maybe that will count for less in the eyes of some forum-readers - is, population flourishes in healthy environments, where people can form friendships and feel like they belong to something. I don't even mean raw numbers by that, but simply a solid population. The orgs that have overall "losing" for a long period of time refuse to accept this. Serenwilde has communication issues and continues to be largely divided within itself. High school locker rooms are friendier environments than Magnagora. These are orgs that were carried by strong combatants and never bothered to work on their internal problems when these departure of these combatants, for other orgs or from the game, left a void. I am sick and tired of hearing about how all of your failings are because 'we' grief you so hard forever and ever. Because we don't.
I've read through most of this thread, and beyond the first couple of pages, it's all pretty stupid. You want fair? Play a board game. Players influence the field here. Make the effort to improve things both for yourselves and the people around you. Will it automatically make you a winner? No. But it will keep you from feeling like a loser, whatever the outcome of any given competition. You will just ignore this and continue to feel hard done by. I'm not sorry my org is so much better than yours though. We've worked really hard to make it that way.
What response is there to that? There isn't always even numbers - is either side expected to simply not compete when that is the case? This is a meaningless sentiment when, practically by design, the game does not accomodate "fair competition". I mean this in the sense that many competition events occur at unpredictable times - we can't plan to all put our best foot forward.
My bolded, argument winning sentiment - and mind you, I've actually been playing the game recently, so maybe that will count for less in the eyes of some forum-readers - is, population flourishes in healthy environments, where people can form friendships and feel like they belong to something. I don't even mean raw numbers by that, but simply a solid population. The orgs that have overall "losing" for a long period of time refuse to accept this. Serenwilde has communication issues and continues to be largely divided within itself. High school locker rooms are friendier environments than Magnagora. These are orgs that were carried by strong combatants and never bothered to work on their internal problems when these departure of these combatants, for other orgs or from the game, left a void. I am sick and tired of hearing about how all of your failings are because 'we' grief you so hard forever and ever. Because we don't.
I've read through most of this thread, and beyond the first couple of pages, it's all pretty stupid. You want fair? Play a board game. Players influence the field here. Make the effort to improve things both for yourselves and the people around you. Will it automatically make you a winner? No. But it will keep you from feeling like a loser, whatever the outcome of any given competition. You will just ignore this and continue to feel hard done by. I'm not sorry my org is so much better than yours though. We've worked really hard to make it that way.
Unknown2012-01-26 18:27:58
Jello:
You've been stomping the competition thanks in part to having greater numbers for years now, and you still aren't tired of it. You won't get tired of it, I think everyone gets that by now. But if Lusternia continues to cater to people like you, it will definitely die. Good PvP is about fair competition, not across years of campaigning, but within each round of the game.
The reason why this round of Glomdoring domination is so long is not just because we have numbers/superiority. It's because there are those on your side of the game who are supremely negative about everything that can be done to help them. I've been reading posts by people about how domoths/flares/revolts are so tedious, that it takes time to get to places, etc. There are ways to cut down on the tediousness and the long travel times. Glomdoring certainly uses these methods available to everyone, but you don't seem to. Maybe scale down on the seething morass of negative energy to actually look at what you can do with what you have available, rather than campaigning for even more complex things to add to Lusternia.
Enyalida2012-01-26 18:38:42
I don't agree with a lot of the suggested methods to tone down o cap group combat, for a variety of reasons.
I also don't agree with a lot of the rhetoric flying around this thread as much as I may agree with some of the embedded points, and feel no reason why I should even attempt to try and respond to any of it. My seething morass of negative energy is to high for me to take the invaluable lessons that are to be found in every situation that just isn't going to change (this thread). I'm obviously just an idiot for not realizing it earlier (?).
I also don't agree with a lot of the rhetoric flying around this thread as much as I may agree with some of the embedded points, and feel no reason why I should even attempt to try and respond to any of it. My seething morass of negative energy is to high for me to take the invaluable lessons that are to be found in every situation that just isn't going to change (this thread). I'm obviously just an idiot for not realizing it earlier (?).
