Fair and balanced isn't what I want. That's an illusion. It'll never be fair to everybody.

I want to reduce the perception of dilution.

I don't think codified alliances will really help much with the perception of dilution in the long run. It might at the high end, but that's already achieved via clans (Ironhart, Equinox, etc).

I still feel like Factions would be the best method to reduce the perception of dilution, as you refer to it. Two per org, add in a few codified advantages to them, and I think - at least within an organization - it will feel smaller and more filled out. Guilds may continue to be niche focuses, but that's for those who care to engage in them full-scale.

Throw in a faction leadership position and a representative seat on the Council (could either do it like Families - can be GM and Family Head and someone is appointed to the rep spot (could be yourself if you don't already have a seat) or like GM/CL - one or the other. I'm more preferable to the former, personally).

With that I do, more and more, think the Ambassador change would be a good idea, and probably letting your city prophesy quest count towards guild points (ie get the prophesy get the equivalent of a strong guildfavour - four or five and you hit gr3). I'm pretty sure we aren't interested in removing the auto-graduation aspect of the Collegium. It's been that way since open. Though in the process maybe we can get rid of GNT altogether. I think CGT suffices for what would be the new intention for novice interaction, and GT/GTS would be for guild-based interactions.

Ultimately, it allows Factions to become the new 'focus' organizations within a city, directs the focus of players towards cities, and lets guilds feel less like obligatory engagements (but still engaging for those who want to focus on that aspect of their character). You don't need to leave a Faction to change your class, and it's an aspect of your character that can persist through multiple classes/be shared through multiple classes.

Like I said, I don't think we'll get rid of the auto-graduate aspect. I've come from Achaea, and was there well before Houses etc. I remember being kicked out of the druids as I failed my exam, because, and I quote, I was "too interested in the forests and trees". It was suggested I try the Sylvans instead. Having people's access to their class be so restricted on usually subjective standards isn't 'fun'. Having it held up because of exams or expectations isn't enjoyable. I'd rather see the collegium experience cover enough aspects for people to engage and understand the basics of Lusternia - even if they graduate without experiencing everything the collegium has to offer, they still can go back and do it (and maybe gaining Honours in your collegium will give you a nice guildfavour or something or faction favour automatically).

As always, just my opinions/thoughts!

I really don't think that would make factions the focus, really just don't. They'd be an auxiliary organization. Even if there is a factional seat on the council, that's one seat to the five guilds get. The very fact that you won't have to change factions to change classes will make the guild choice more important.

I've got a suggestion that will actually downplay the importance of the guild more, but it deserves a detailed/planned explanation and I'm about half way through writing it out in a detailed/planned way.

Communes/cities really don't need even more council seats, there's more than enough as is.

I don't think codified alliances will really help much with the perception of dilution in the long run. It might at the high end, but that's already achieved via clans (Ironhart, Equinox, etc).

There's this overwhelming sense of an exiguous population within an organisation that cannot be remedied with a clan. Today, I recall asking a Serenwilde player how many people were online before the War Domoth. He said 4 total. Hallifax had 0. My point is the disparity and the scant population isn't going to be erased by clans. Factions seem to only reorganise the internal structure of an organisation. I am trying to brainstorm this a little more given the constraints.

I remember being kicked out of the druids as I failed my exam, because, and I quote, I was "too interested in the forests and trees". It was suggested I try the Sylvans instead. Having people's access to their class be so restricted on usually subjective standards isn't 'fun'. Having it held up because of exams or expectations isn't enjoyable.

I support taking this direction a lot. Increasing flexibility and malleability of skillsets among guilds opens up things for seasoned players. This keeps the end-game from becoming drab and banausic. It follows the same vein as the introduction of skill flexing, which is good for everybody, particularly veterans of Lusternia.

Jozen:



There's this overwhelming sense of an exiguous population within an organisation that cannot be remedied with a clan. Today, I recall asking a Serenwilde player how many people were online before the War Domoth. He said 4 total. Hallifax had 0. My point is the disparity and the scant population isn't going to be erased by clans. Factions seem to only reorganise the internal structure of an organisation. I am trying to brainstorm this a little more given the constraints.

Sure! I'm all for brainstorming. I'm not sure what a codified alliance system would do in that situation, however, to improve things.

I support taking this direction a lot. Increasing flexibility and malleability of skillsets among guilds opens up things for seasoned players. This keeps the end-game from becoming drab and banausic. It follows the same vein as the introduction of skill flexing, which is good for everybody, particularly veterans of Lusternia.

I'm not sure what direction you're thinking of that going, but what I gleamed was an implication of multiclassing. Again, we're not looking at or considering going that route. Archetypes and guilds are too interwoven, lore-wise, sorry.

Eventru:

I still feel like Factions would be the best method to reduce the perception of dilution, as you refer to it. Two per org, add in a few codified advantages to them, and I think - at least within an organization - it will feel smaller and more filled out. Guilds may continue to be niche focuses, but that's for those who care to engage in them full-scale.

I don't think the number should be uniform, the uniformity of everything in this game can quite honestly become extremely annoying. Orgs should have a number of factions within them appropriate to that org.

Also, similar to cults in MKO the factions should be able to be formed by players and dissolve if they do not work actively enough to maintain them.

Throw in a faction leadership position and a representative seat on the Council (could either do it like Families - can be GM and Family Head and someone is appointed to the rep spot (could be yourself if you don't already have a seat) or like GM/CL - one or the other. I'm more preferable to the former, personally).

If your goal is to focus on the commune/city more than the... sub-orgs the answer is rather simple. Remove representative seats on the council as they are, have a specific number of seats on the council that anyone in the commune/city can contest for. The factions, guilds, and families would then need to play the political game to get elected or be represented on the council.

With that I do, more and more, think the Ambassador change would be a good idea, and probably letting your city prophesy quest count towards guild points (ie get the prophesy get the equivalent of a strong guildfavour - four or five and you hit gr3). I'm pretty sure we aren't interested in removing the auto-graduation aspect of the Collegium. It's been that way since open. Though in the process maybe we can get rid of GNT altogether. I think CGT suffices for what would be the new intention for novice interaction, and GT/GTS would be for guild-based interactions.

I think you need to come up with a clear idea of what new players should be learning in the collegium and what they should be learning as they enter the guild.

And seriously, doing the city quest for guild favours is a terribad idea. What players are you expecting are going to be doing them for guild favours? Due to the design decisions gr1-3 is still novice, I had the suggestion recently that those ranks should involve tasks like "get armour", and "learning how to collect power for the nexus" because the view is that's what people of that rank should be learning how to do, yet you seem to think they're prepared to do generators for seven hours or empower the font at that time.

Like I said, I don't think we'll get rid of the auto-graduate aspect. I've come from Achaea, and was there well before Houses etc. I remember being kicked out of the druids as I failed my exam, because, and I quote, I was "too interested in the forests and trees". It was suggested I try the Sylvans instead. Having people's access to their class be so restricted on usually subjective standards isn't 'fun'. Having it held up because of exams or expectations isn't enjoyable. I'd rather see the collegium experience cover enough aspects for people to engage and understand the basics of Lusternia - even if they graduate without experiencing everything the collegium has to offer, they still can go back and do it (and maybe gaining Honours in your collegium will give you a nice guildfavour or something or faction favour automatically).

Before anything like that happens, the admin need to heavily, heavily review collegiums. I think they actually need to listen and look at the reality of what is occurring. The requirements that are there across, it seems, most of the other IRE games for you to get out of novicehood didn't disappear, they just got pushed back.

For example, right now if you removed novicehood and gave a guildfavour for what the collegium covers we'd potentially be looking at eighteen tasks for them to go between gr2 and 3 with an honours requirement to get gr2.

This is simply because there are things the collegium as an automated system with little to no interaction required from the teachers other than pointing novices to scrolls and helping them with specific quests (planes for all of them, power for some). Guild novicehood was/is more interactive simply because to advance you actually have to interact with someone, which means things like "Have a description" which seem almost like a universal requirement to get past novicehood can't really be covered.


EDIT: Also, belatedly, it occurs to me that your experience with the druids and the sylvans is an excellent example of where class and guild being tied together is a negative, you would have been able to play the druid class if that's what you wanted in a guild that suited your character more. And the guilds can actually say to someone "you're not appropriate for our guild"

Saran:
... Also, belatedly, it occurs to me that your experience with the druids and the sylvans is an excellent example of where class and guild being tied together is a negative, you would have been able to play the druid class if that's what you wanted in a guild that suited your character more. And the guilds can actually say to someone "you're not appropriate for our guild."

I don't know, maybe there should be consequences. If you rape and pillage Serenwilde for 70 IG years, should you get a fair chance at flipping the board and starting over? Likewise, if you roll a Viscanti or an Illithoid, should Celest change its RP and give you a fair chance at being an Aquamancer or Tahtetso? Try the same thing with Magnagora and Merians.

What you are really asking for is to give every little subgroup a shot at making their own failed guild, it doesn't change what the main problems are. And I know because we already did this in Imperian (I know I keep saying this). There's room for improvement, but I think Eventru has good experience in what actually works. As it is, there's no need to rush into a new system that will only cause more long-term problems.

I don't mind the notion of players being able to found new factions in the future, but I think two is plenty in each org for the moment.

I don't expect people to do prophesy quests for guild rank three, I merely offered it as a method for those who have inactive guilds. It - by no means - is meant to be the expected, primary means of advancing in a guild. Guild quests is simply way too much effort.

I don't really view my experience as a good reason for multiclassing - it wasn't about being a Druid class, it was about the guild and one person's opinion standing in the way. That is what happens in guild systems where it's expected for you to spend weeks without advancing to full status, where it is held up by guild advancements and exams. Lusternia is all the better to be without that, between novicehood and gr1.

Eventru:

Guild quests is simply way too much effort.

What kind of crazy guild would want a quest of their own anyways? The hubris!

Reunak:

I don't know, maybe there should be consequences. If you rape and pillage Serenwilde for 70 IG years, should you get a fair chance at flipping the board and starting over? Likewise, if you roll a Viscanti or an Illithoid, should Celest change its RP and give you a fair chance at being an Aquamancer or Tahtetso? Try the same thing with Magnagora and Merians.

Er, I'm actually supporting that you should not be able to do any of this. I think guilds being able to turn around and say "You're not appropriate for this guild" is a good thing because often those things are grounded in rp.

For example if you're an Illithoid and you come to Serenwilde you'll be asked to leave, you won't be allowed membership, and potentially you could be kicked if you change to it. Not being able to do this is not good.

Eventru:

I don't really view my experience as a good reason for multiclassing - it wasn't about being a Druid class, it was about the guild and one person's opinion standing in the way. That is what happens in guild systems where it's expected for you to spend weeks without advancing to full status, where it is held up by guild advancements and exams. Lusternia is all the better to be without that, between novicehood and gr1.

However, lusternia's system doesn't actually change the issue if you're not going for the class. You could just as easily put a requirement at rank one to pass such an interview and still be kicked out of the guild because you are not appropriate for the guild, the difference here is that because this waited until after novicehood you lose a significantly larger number of lessons than you would have otherwise unless you keep the class and wander around without a guild.

Saran:

The system in MKO is automated, when it was first released people tried to make their own sects... I think only one has managed to get through the process, every other one failed and was closed in less than 24 hours.

However, lusternia's system doesn't actually change the issue if you're not going for the class. You could just as easily put a requirement at rank one to pass such an interview and still be kicked out of the guild because you are not appropriate for the guild, the difference here is that because this waited until after novicehood you lose a significantly larger number of lessons than you would have otherwise unless you keep the class and wander around without a guild.

I'm not really familiar with MKO's order system. I think I prefer something a bit more subjective, ie requiring admin approval. That way we can make sure there are a given number of members, it's active, appropriate backstory etc.

People have wandered around without a guild previously, and Lusternia's managed to avoid those kinds of requirements so far. You offer a fair enough argument, but it doesn't really change anything. We're not doing multiclassing, and bringing it up again and again just makes us less and less interested in engaging with those who do. I presume this has been more or less an academic argument, anyways.

Isn't the whole thread just an academic argument? I honestly don't see any of this helping with the population dilution issue.

We have too many cities, communes, and guilds. We have too many other organizations and systems that give tangible benefits. It just feels like battling inflation by printing more money.

Sadly, this is wholly apparent to 95% of the playerbase, but I fear it is also something that is unlikely to change anytime soon. (If at all.)

Eventru:


I'm not really familiar with MKO's order system. I think I prefer something a bit more subjective, ie requiring admin approval. That way we can make sure there are a given number of members, it's active, appropriate backstory etc.

The sect system allows a priest to form a sect for a god for 10 gold (100000 copper for those who are thinking "wow cheap"). You have 10,000 essence, you need to get 1,000,000 plus provide other information needed to get admin approval to become a real sect (summary of philosophy and beliefs, shrine descriptions).

The only way to get essence is through a mastermind style influencing that seems to provide very little essence, and you can only do that if you have five members in the cult. No other method for getting essence works, and the fewer members you have the more essence is drained daily from the cult, oh and you have an essence cap of 100,000 per day.

Effectively, if you only have the bare minimum you're going to crash and burn, the system is designed to ensure this.

People have wandered around without a guild previously, and Lusternia's managed to avoid those kinds of requirements so far. You offer a fair enough argument, but it doesn't really change anything. We're not doing multiclassing, and bringing it up again and again just makes us less and less interested in engaging with those who do. I presume this has been more or less an academic argument, anyways.

It's more that Lusternia is different, things that were done as standard in Achaea aren't done here even though they could be. I am also remembering being kicked out of the Sylvans (which is when I found lusternia) but I was a rank one, so on top of losing class and guild, I think I also lost 50% of the lessons which would have not been bought yet and not been as severe had it occurred when I was still a novice. Potentially causing my favor of a longer time as a novice.

It's not a very focussed thread, that's for sure!

While it's true we have 'too many' orgs and guilds than is optimal for the current population, were Lusternia to draw more players, it would be just fine (being in a small guild, myself, I think that things are just fine as they are, anyway, but I'm all for growth!).

In any case, it seems backwards to want to cull the opportunities that we have available to us (orgs, guilds). Instead of this thread proposing ideas like this, perhaps we should be coming up with ideas for raising interest in the game, and encouraging new players to stick around. This will solve all perceived problems of player dilution, and the game's growth.

As others have mentioned, this thread appears regularly --- nothing has really changed with the player population. I still see ~150 people on during peak times and ~30 during off-peak times, which is roughly the same number as it was last year. The game has slowed down in some aspects, mainly to do with combat and politics, but that is largely due to player-instigated events, such as the sort-of-dissolution of the Ironhart and reluctance to strike up inter-org politics (and some mechanical ones --- such as the change to distort, shrines, super mobs and enemy area xp loss). Combat, as quoted by combatants, has become boring --- fighting has little purpose, and has a higher cost. Though, we did ask for these changes, if you remember.

The Admin and volunteers implemented a slew of new features this last year, which have improved the game so much. There is so much going for Lusternia. So where are the new players?

Perhaps another cross-IRE promotion to encourage players from other games to try out Lusternia would be good to run? I remember that our population peaked during that last promotion (at least, we had a big influx of newbies!). Maybe make it Lusternia-only? It was something to do with credits + lessons for new alts, or something. The game has changed a lot since then.

(Plus I think the change to Collegiums would be awesome before such a promotion, but that's me.)

Yeah, I really don't think that adding more orgs to inflated organizations won't help.

I also don't know how formal alliances, orders in MKO, fighting having no purpose (though I agree, it's not on-topic) and whatever else fits into the picture. I will have to say that every year, people say that Lusternia is dying, and they're wrong every time. If I had to say, Lusternia isn't growing. It's not dying, not even close, but its playerbase certainly isn't expanding.

Multiclass, merging, etc. probably won't happen, so while a bummer, there's no sense fighting against the Vision.

Just expand the collegium duties and do the guild bond idea, that ought to help with the loneliness. It's also the simplest idea.

Heck, just remove novicehood altogether, have it all be collegium until GR1.

Svorai:

It's not a very focussed thread, that's for sure!

Think this is because rather than being a "lets do this" thread, it's an open discussion thread where things are being tossed around.

While it's true we have 'too many' orgs and guilds than is optimal for the current population, were Lusternia to draw more players, it would be just fine (being in a small guild, myself, I think that things are just fine as they are, anyway, but I'm all for growth!).


In any case, it seems backwards to want to cull the opportunities that we have available to us (orgs, guilds). Instead of this thread proposing ideas like this, perhaps we should be coming up with ideas for raising interest in the game, and encouraging new players to stick around. This will solve all perceived problems of player dilution, and the game's growth.

As others have mentioned, this thread appears regularly --- nothing has really changed with the player population. I still see ~150 people on during peak times and ~30 during off-peak times, which is roughly the same number as it was last year. The game has slowed down in some aspects, mainly to do with combat and politics, but that is largely due to player-instigated events, such as the sort-of-dissolution of the Ironhart and reluctance to strike up inter-org politics (and some mechanical ones --- such as the change to distort, shrines, super mobs and enemy area xp loss). Combat, as quoted by combatants, has become boring --- fighting has little purpose, and has a higher cost. Though, we did ask for these changes, if you remember.

I guess the questions that come from that are why has politics slowed down? what is up with combat? Is it time for the leaders of the various orgs to jump on to some giant ooc channel and start talking with the admin about how to shake things up for the good?

The Admin and volunteers implemented a slew of new features this last year, which have improved the game so much. There is so much going for Lusternia. So where are the new players?

I think we also should be considering exactly what came out in the last year and who it really affects. Lots of releases are great, but by the same note as an example a lot of focus on demigod doesn't really do much for novices, except the ones that jump on an aethership and are suddenly a demigod.

Curios don't really seem very newbie friendly, those credits could be spent on lessons for example.

Area releases can depend on the area, a high level area might engage them one day, but not if they don't get to that level before leaving. I mean one of the areas releases zombies onto the highways that novices might be wandering on if they're lucky enough to get bards/pilgrims before the older ones get to them.

Cavalier sounds like a cool idea, but I haven't really played with it nor do I have an idea of how difficult it would be to get access to the skill from novicehood nor how much it relies on beastmastery.

The special reports hopefully improved the desirability of the skills affected by them, but YMMV.

Similarly, the reception of Shamanism may be a case of YMMV. I quite like the feeling of the skill, but it's effectiveness seems to be questioned by others. And I'm not sure who to ask for how to best use it.

This likely isn't everything, and it's definitely a lot of work that has gone in to expanding the game. I guess my point is just cause there is new stuff doesn't mean that it's going to help with newbie retention if it's not as accessible early on.

Perhaps another cross-IRE promotion to encourage players from other games to try out Lusternia would be good to run? I remember that our population peaked during that last promotion (at least, we had a big influx of newbies!). Maybe make it Lusternia-only? It was something to do with credits + lessons for new alts, or something. The game has changed a lot since then.

(Plus I think the change to Collegiums would be awesome before such a promotion, but that's me.)

I think getting IRE to sponsor a promotion for a single game would be a really hard sell.

Saran:

I think we also should be considering exactly what came out in the last year and who it really affects. Lots of releases are great, but by the same note as an example a lot of focus on demigod doesn't really do much for novices, except the ones that jump on an aethership and are suddenly a demigod.



This likely isn't everything, and it's definitely a lot of work that has gone in to expanding the game. I guess my point is just cause there is new stuff doesn't mean that it's going to help with newbie retention if it's not as accessible early on.

...I feel like you're upset with what I'm saying; I'm totally agreeing with you.

A majority of changes that were made this year were made for us end-gamers --- not for newbies. I totally agree. Curios + skillset changes were not intended to draw people in, but requested by the playerbase, or created as something interesting for the existing players.

However, things like liquid rifts, the million bugs that Iosai&Co squished, and adding in the auto-curing feature should be mentioned in praise of Lusternia's attempts to make the game more newbie-friendly. Has a long way to go, sure, but it's something, and there's a committment to expand on these foundations.

I believe that focussing on newbies and looking at reworking the Collegium as a means of engaging and retaining new players would be a very good option. That's all. That's my entire contribution here. All else was in response to other people.

Sojiro:

I also don't know how formal alliances, orders in MKO, fighting having no purpose (though I agree, it's not on-topic) and whatever else fits into the picture. I will have to say that every year, people say that Lusternia is dying, and they're wrong every time. If I had to say, Lusternia isn't growing. It's not dying, not even close, but its playerbase certainly isn't expanding.

Yay, Shuface.

Game is not in trouble, it's just not growing. If people are worried about player dilution, they should concentrate on player recruitment and novice-centric solutions.

Svorai:

...I feel like you're upset with what I'm saying; I'm totally agreeing with you.

I'm not, just more pointing out what you mentioned next. Cause that's what we seem to be advertising at least to the other iron realms and I guess it's a bit more towards answering the question at the end.