Are there too many settlements (i.e., cities/communes) in Lusternia?

24

Comments

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,733 Transcendent
    I bet it was Xynthin.  He tried to delete all orgs, failed, and now must settle for spitefully nuking posts instead.
    image
  • MinkahmetMinkahmet Member Posts: 6 Novice
    I'm not sure what to think honestly, but I can clearly see since I gave it another go, that the population has really gone down, down from 16th place and counting in mud listings-well topmudsites I like to refer to anyway. (Which I fairly look at in between months)  I think perhaps, at times it is best to choose which hard road to take, because either way it will hurt the game on any side it is coming from, if you are to find some inspiration to grab a chance at a higher pbase to keep interest and...to get the newbie mudders involved. So personally, I wouldn't take offense if my org got the boot. However, not everyone is that versatile in their development for their character. So, that's just my thinking, not speaking for everyone else.

    So perhaps a few new mechanics to draw in attention to the current and maybe the new.
  • RilunaRiluna Member Posts: 1,089 Mythical
    That's easier said than done, Minkahmet. Over the past couple years, I've definitely gotten the sense that IRE has all but given up on recruiting new people. It really seems more about milking the few who stay for as much as they can.

    Nuking any org, sparsely populated or no, isn't likely to be conducive toward any such kind of retention. Save perhaps, if people stop choosing to play one at all. People already have the choice to play in other orgs with other people; they've chosen the ones they did for a reason. At this point, it's kinda more like forcing us to play with each other, when we've already (to a degree) elected not to be that close to certain people.

    None of this is to say I am under the impression IRE is against some sort of recruitment drive, per se. Moreso that they're probably fresh out of ideas. I'm sure if any of us came up with some sort of genius new draw to the games that they haven't already tried, it would be welcome.

    Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
  • DaedrothDaedroth Member Posts: 4 Inept
    edited September 19
    Riluna said:
    That's easier said than done, Minkahmet. Over the past couple years, I've definitely gotten the sense that IRE has all but given up on recruiting new people. It really seems more about milking the few who stay for as much as they can.

    Nuking any org, sparsely populated or no, isn't likely to be conducive toward any such kind of retention. Save perhaps, if people stop choosing to play one at all. People already have the choice to play in other orgs with other people; they've chosen the ones they did for a reason. At this point, it's kinda more like forcing us to play with each other, when we've already (to a degree) elected not to be that close to certain people.

    None of this is to say I am under the impression IRE is against some sort of recruitment drive, per se. Moreso that they're probably fresh out of ideas. I'm sure if any of us came up with some sort of genius new draw to the games that they haven't already tried, it would be welcome.
    That analysis is incredibly depressing. I just came back to IRE games a little while ago, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I hope Starmourn doesn't kill Lusternia, but it probably will.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    So I'm in the "Yes and..." camp I guess. 

    I don't think it'd so much be one org that goes and that's it.

    I think we'd want to be looking at replacing the current orgs with consolidated ones rather than just ditching one or two.

    A "Faethorn" merger of Seren and Glom. If we're really honest, probably also Divinus and Excorable orgs. Effectively pitting the two cosmic energies against each other and nature, ideally not just being Celest and Magnagora but instead something new that mixes aspects of the four cities together.


    That said, I doubt this would happen anytime soon, particularly with factions barely being released.
    image
    image
  • YehnYehn Member Posts: 282 Master
    Saran said:
    So I'm in the "Yes and..." camp I guess. 

    I don't think it'd so much be one org that goes and that's it.

    I think we'd want to be looking at replacing the current orgs with consolidated ones rather than just ditching one or two.

    A "Faethorn" merger of Seren and Glom. If we're really honest, probably also Divinus and Excorable orgs. Effectively pitting the two cosmic energies against each other and nature, ideally not just being Celest and Magnagora but instead something new that mixes aspects of the four cities together.


    That said, I doubt this would happen anytime soon, particularly with factions barely being released.
    From the stories I've heard veterans tell, this was essentially Lusternia on release with its 3 orgs....

    Unless it was completely and utterly amazing, if it happened it would also be the last nail in the coffin for me. Don't really care for a plain good vs evil dichotomy and I'm pretty meh about nature themes in games (which basically always seem to end up just as zealous/righteous as holy themes, sometimes moreso...)
    beep
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,733 Transcendent
    Everiine: I had been thinking along those lines (though not that specific example, of course).  There are just so many identity conflicts even before you get to what most would consider "core".  For example, Xenthos regularly makes centaur steaks for Glomdoring gatherings.  Beyond that you have the kepheran / illithoid divide (Glom teaches that the kepherans declared war on us, we are still at war, and thus eradication of the bugs is an excellent use of one's time).

    I just do not see how you can merge viewpoints that are so wildly divergent on so many things and expect anything good to come of it.
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    Yehn said:
    Saran said:
    So I'm in the "Yes and..." camp I guess. 

    I don't think it'd so much be one org that goes and that's it.

    I think we'd want to be looking at replacing the current orgs with consolidated ones rather than just ditching one or two.

    A "Faethorn" merger of Seren and Glom. If we're really honest, probably also Divinus and Excorable orgs. Effectively pitting the two cosmic energies against each other and nature, ideally not just being Celest and Magnagora but instead something new that mixes aspects of the four cities together.


    That said, I doubt this would happen anytime soon, particularly with factions barely being released.
    From the stories I've heard veterans tell, this was essentially Lusternia on release with its 3 orgs....

    Unless it was completely and utterly amazing, if it happened it would also be the last nail in the coffin for me. Don't really care for a plain good vs evil dichotomy and I'm pretty meh about nature themes in games (which basically always seem to end up just as zealous/righteous as holy themes, sometimes moreso...)

    Yeah, but also not necessarily.

    Mostly just something to muse about, but an example for divinus could be a city of Faith and Science, two halves working together to seek explore the greater and higher powers of the immanidivinus.  

    Of course, it's only a quick example, but in line with it I'd expect a consolidation would see the existing skills all move to one of the new orgs.
    So here, we'd see researchers and celestines side by side. (Also as a bonus, you could start seeing more classes of under the existing archetypes because of this)
    image
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    edited September 20
    Everiine said:
    In Elder Scrolls mythology, when the Empire formally took over the province of Morrowind and Lord Vivec brokered the deal, the most influential and important house of the province, House Indoril, experienced such a tremendous loss of identity connected to their view of outsiders and the way things should be that the leaders of the house took their own lives rather than live in the new reality, permanently crippling the House and ensuring it would never rise again.

    I'm pretty sure a similar situation would happen if you tried to force Serenwilde and Glomdoring into a permanent, new org together.
    Xenthos said:
    Everiine: I had been thinking along those lines (though not that specific example, of course).  There are just so many identity conflicts even before you get to what most would consider "core".  For example, Xenthos regularly makes centaur steaks for Glomdoring gatherings.  Beyond that you have the kepheran / illithoid divide (Glom teaches that the kepherans declared war on us, we are still at war, and thus eradication of the bugs is an excellent use of one's time).

    I just do not see how you can merge viewpoints that are so wildly divergent on so many things and expect anything good to come of it.
    Sure, but is a poll about whether or not orgs should straight up be deleted.
    It's probably worth keeping in mind that in this, hopefully theoretical, situation any org could end up just not existing anymore.

    Earlier posts noted the opposition of the orgs with the expectation that a reduction would see both sides of the org removed, which does make some sense.

    Without some form of merger, this would, in turn, mean that the tropes people like from their org would not be available anymore. Your only option would be to play in one of the other organisations.

    Similar to the concerns in the guild overhaul, we'd also likely see fallout over the decision between who gets to stay and who doesn't.
    For example, you could see the forests being protected from deletion because deleting them would mean no more communes, no druids or wiccans, etc. Which is certain to enrage players in an org up for deletion.

    Also, the suggested forestal org was intentionally labelled Faethorn as opposed to Serendoring/Glomwilde. It would, in theory, take tropes and hooks from both organisations, but it would be a new org "rising from the ashes of the failed communes".
    Sure, you'll lose some people, but you'll also offer the forest players a new home that could retain those who would leave rather than join a city.


    EDIT: For something more specific, a "Faethorn" org could end up being neutral towards the undervault where an Excorable focused org would likely have the noted views on the Kephera and a Divinus one on similarly set up againt the Illithoid. So players would need to prioritise what's important to them.

    It is worth noting that in the theoretical scenario that one forest is up for deletion and the other is not, the players would be forced to make a more extreme choice in this particular context. Because you're choosing between staying in a forest org or flipping to the opposing side of the UV conflict.
    Post edited by Saran on
    image
    image
  • ChirbiChirbi Member Posts: 130 Capable
    What follows is a long and ramble'y post expanding on a previous idea about emphasizing alliances instead of cutting orgs.

    As a preface, I think it'd be very important that cities could realign themselves with other cities. I know it's theoretically possible and folks like to talk about shaking up the alliance, but for all intents and purposes they're pretty set. Which is fine but I do want to leave open the idea of those staying mutable.

    We could absolve city ranks all together (which would be hard and scary, I know! Hang with me!) and instead for unification everyone has the same alliance ranks. CR1 through 10 just like it is now, except you can also be awarded favours from people in other cities. For example, helping someone in your alliance secure a domoth for their city. Maybe favouring someone from outside your city reduces your favour weight to 75%. You could chose to live an entirely insular life, only work on your own Nexus for your own city, and do all of your political progression like you have been. Or you can continue to be the team player you've always been and now have the opportunity for more advancement/rewards.

    What if you can jump cities within your alliance with org head approval at a 60% loss in rank? CR10 goes to CR4 which sucks, but hey, it might be a fun mechanic for folks who want to spice things up without burning any bridges. What if with org head approval, you could join guilds outside your city but within the alliance at a malus of never being higher than GR3 or GM?

    We could look to  extend family bonuses to folks married across cities within the same alliance. Sadly, the player base isn't large or constantly refreshing with new players. As an example of a small org, Gaudiguch is SOL when it comes to launching a new great family or even resurrecting an old one. We're looking at OOC months and months of seriously dedicated team work just to get on the bottom of the list. Which I think several folks are determined to make happen, but it's a lot more work than Mag has to put in since it already has 4(?) established great houses. If we could share family stuff to a diminished extent, it'd open up a lot of opportunities and encourage more cross-city cooperation. For example, let honour houses get some points for defending other planes within their alliance. Or, let your city earn some culture family score if you're married into a great house in another city.

    For culture, some orgs are going upwards of 10 IC years without a single person touching the stage, and some orgs may have writers but nobody to edit their work etc. If we could work within our alliance and across cities, more writing/production could happen. Presently, all I stand from helping someone from another city is a malus to my own org. What if my backstage time in Glom helped both of our orgs? Tie this in to watching productions: let us continue to generate culture watching recordings on other folks's stages, but maybe send 30% of that bonus back home and 70% to the org with the stage. Send some of that theatre activity back home if someone acts in a production outside of their city. (These are arbitrary numbers!)

    I think this would make for a convenient boundary on what classes you can bring from other orgs too. People keep classes that really don't belong in Gaudi only because we don't have a few skillsets. Maybe if cities could only allow classes from within their current alliance, it'd give folks more choices without having to blatantly harbor opposing skillsets. I'm sorry I only have a Gaudi example right now, I'm sure other orgs deal with mis-matching classes, I know Halli also doesn't have monks.

    I don't know if everyone enjoys their current collegium setup, but maybe a shared CGT across the alliance would be nice. Between CGT, CT, NEWBIE, GT and any number of OOC clans there's more than enough confusing choices for new players to guess where to ask questions. Sharing professors across the alliance would be a big help too for situations where maybe a player's timezone is very different from a lot of the people in their city.

    I still think we need to consolidate and remove several city positions too :innocent: Maybe some aides/ministers could work across cities with limited privileges- librarians/aides could issue cards and catalogue, but not publish outside of their own city; power minister/aides could check logs but not connect portals; professors would have access to a shared CGT; culture minister/aides could add stage managers but not submit; and so on.

    Please feel free to criticize and rip to shreds and build upon this! It's definitely a very rough idea, but it might be a direction that doesn't do things like smash orgs together that don't belong, or devastate the reasons why players are in those orgs to begin with, or require anyone going on the chopping block. Also if someone hates it, it could still provide enough space for them in their current org without paying attention to the alliance at large. 
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    I think alliances would be a really neat thing for Org v Org conflict moving forward.

    You could do a bunch of things with it and if done well it could encourage shifts if grouping up against the biggest threats was in your best interests. 


    But as a resolution to population issues, it sounds a bit like covenants, and I'm not sure how much it would actually do.

    The disconnect between guild and org, getting people from other orgs to come in and run things for you (cause realistically, you'd likely find that puppet ministers go up just to appoint aides).

    I feel like that would pretty much cement the alliances, because at that point changing them isn't just going to mean some friends are on opposing sides, you're actually looking at removing people from their guilds. Your ministries and guilds might even stop functioning properly because the people doing the work are in a different org that you've broken your alliance with.
    image
    image
  • ChirbiChirbi Member Posts: 130 Capable
    Makes lots of sense, there's definitely lots of kinks and issues. Talking about population issues, cutting orgs, MKO going down all gets to be a bit bleak for long-term IRE veterans, so more than anything I was just hoping to throw out a random idea to see if anything productive/positive might come from these kinds of talks. Very open and excited for any suggestions on how to improve things!
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    edited September 21
    Chirbi said:
    Makes lots of sense, there's definitely lots of kinks and issues. Talking about population issues, cutting orgs, MKO going down all gets to be a bit bleak for long-term IRE veterans, so more than anything I was just hoping to throw out a random idea to see if anything productive/positive might come from these kinds of talks. Very open and excited for any suggestions on how to improve things!
    Yeah definitely, the guild overhaul was anxiety-inducing enough when we were trying to salvage as much as possible of our org identities. The idea of cutting one or more is just so much more so. (Still saddened that we'll pretty much never see Ackleberry and Jojobo released as player orgs)
    image
    image
  • VeyilsVeyils Member Posts: 1,376 Mythical
    I dont think we should buff alliances. Totally the other way around. We should make alliances harder and less usefull mechanically.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    Veyils said:
    I dont think we should buff alliances. Totally the other way around. We should make alliances harder and less usefull mechanically.
    Given there aren't really any mechanics specifically supporting alliances, you'd need to have something that people would actually use to do so. 
    image
    image
  • YehnYehn Member Posts: 282 Master
    Veyils said:
    I dont think we should buff alliances. Totally the other way around. We should make alliances harder and less usefull mechanically.
    I remember people saying stuff like this when I first started... 

    Something I've realized since... Lusternia is a game of long term consequences. I also remember one of the reasons given during my first ascension for Gaudi/Glom/Mag not going at each other -- they didn't want to have to spend weeks or months afterwards trying to figure out how to work together again (loosely in the words of one individual). On the one hand I think this adds some depth to Lusternia not many other games have. On the other, it seems to make people a lot more cautious to do things people will remember... after all, instead of some matchmaker spinning us all off into instances where afterwards we might never see each other again... it's always the same people you have to deal with tomorrow, next week, next month, and so on.

    And then... how do you make alliances harder, mechanically? Everything already only directly benefits 1 org (and only allows one org to influence/claim/etc) so that's clearly not enough. And, for example, say you changed domoths so only 1 org could be there to challenge the holder's claim... then an allied org could show up to "contest" but really just be there to take the slot and block anyone else from coming...

    (On the flip side, that Lusternia has such detailed diplomacy is kind of neat).
    beep
  • VeyilsVeyils Member Posts: 1,376 Mythical
    One of the proposed ideas I think it was Shuyin came up with it was to make melds/bardsongs/general aoe effects org only. So that they hit all none org members.

    It'd mean you'd be mechanically hurting yourself for having a group of allies as opposed to a group of individual org members.
  • YehnYehn Member Posts: 282 Master
    Veyils said:
    One of the proposed ideas I think it was Shuyin came up with it was to make melds/bardsongs/general aoe effects org only. So that they hit all none org members.

    It'd mean you'd be mechanically hurting yourself for having a group of allies as opposed to a group of individual org members.
    Would that be strong enough that people wouldn't simply stop using the AoEs/meld? Or do things like split into smaller, org-based squads..?
    beep
  • SylphasSylphas Member Posts: 28 Apprentice
    And if it was strong enough to discourage allies, what stops the top dog org from snowballing as people join in? Making alliances harder also makes it more attractive to join the strongest org if you like to fight.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    Yehn said:
    Veyils said:
    One of the proposed ideas I think it was Shuyin came up with it was to make melds/bardsongs/general aoe effects org only. So that they hit all none org members.

    It'd mean you'd be mechanically hurting yourself for having a group of allies as opposed to a group of individual org members.
    Would that be strong enough that people wouldn't simply stop using the AoEs/meld? Or do things like split into smaller, org-based squads..?
    I feel like balancing classes in the hope that it will stop alliances is a bad idea. It seems like it's the whole "cutting off the nose to spite the face" thing.

    Like, what happens if people just stop using those classes/abilities?
    In theory, they're not impacted so that alliance can fight together, which kinda negates the point of doing it.

    So you'd then need to make bards and melders important/strong enough that people always bring them on both sides so that the goal is achieved.


    Seems really complicated and against what people have been working towards with respect to melds.
    image
    image
  • YarithYarith Member Posts: 910 Fabled
    I think using the word 'balance' in the context of Lusternia is misleading. 
    'Giving equal opportunity' is far more fitting, and just as unfulfilled. 

    Call me elitist, but I don't think people who have limited involvement or stake in pvp should have any weighted say in the state of pvp or mechanics which would ripple into it.

    Being on topic:
    No. There aren't enough players.
    == Professional Girl Gamer == 
    Yes I play games
    Yes I'm a girl
    get over it
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,666 Mythical
    Yarith said:
    I think using the word 'balance' in the context of Lusternia is misleading. 
    'Giving equal opportunity' is far more fitting, and just as unfulfilled. 

    Call me elitist, but I don't think people who have limited involvement or stake in pvp should have any weighted say in the state of pvp or mechanics which would ripple into it.

    Being on topic:
    No. There aren't enough players.
    Sure, yet the common term typically used is balance and the comment does enhance the elitist look of your post. 

    Also, elitists don't always appreciate what it's like on the other side.
    For example, after seeing melders nerfed recently. Apparently, envoys want to make them active hinderances to their allies?

    When I've tried to get back into pvp, the few opportunities were primarily with Seren's allies, but you're saying you want to take that away?

    I mean, it's also not like elitists make comments telling others to leave if they don't like things and then note that there aren't enough players.

    *shrug*
    image
    image
  • FalaeronFalaeron Jolteon Member Posts: 1,609 Transcendent
    Lusternia doesn't have the playerbase to even think about enforcing a free-for-all situation.
  • ChirbiChirbi Member Posts: 130 Capable
    edited September 24
    Newbie retention is a huge piece to the problem of playerbase size, so what are some ideas to help with that?

    So far I've seen no to chopping orgs, no to melding orgs, and no to keeping all our orgs but having reanalyzing alliances. Which leaves me with the burning question: what is a good idea?

    edit: sorry for the massive edit, missed a post earlier in the discussion
  • ChirbiChirbi Member Posts: 130 Capable
    edited September 24
    edit: sorry for the massive edit, missed a post earlier in the discussion
  • YehnYehn Member Posts: 282 Master
    Chirbi said:
     no to keeping all our orgs but having reanalyzing alliances. 

    Now, hold on... this one isn't off the table...

    But, back to your question... I don't think there are any easy answers.
    beep
  • VeyilsVeyils Member Posts: 1,376 Mythical
    @Chirbi

    To be honest there isn't anything bad with alliances or non alliances. Its purely a design concept/route. Should we want the game to encourage cross org alliance or not?

    Its like should be be accepting of rogues or not.
  • SylphasSylphas Member Posts: 28 Apprentice
    Chirbi said:
    Newbie retention is a huge piece to the problem of playerbase size, so what are some ideas to help with that?

    So far I've seen no to chopping orgs, no to melding orgs, and no to keeping all our orgs but having reanalyzing alliances. Which leaves me with the burning question: what is a good idea?

    edit: sorry for the massive edit, missed a post earlier in the discussion
    To some degree, I'm not sure that's a useful framing of the question. If we somehow magically turned Lusternia into a WoW-clone we might keep more people, but is it Lusternia at that point? I could see myself settling into a Lusternia with three orgs again, but I have the privilege of having joined one of the founding orgs in beta and not having moved since. At the same time, I'd be sad to see any of the three new orgs gone, because they're all pretty cool. Gutting the game, or radically redoing things, or otherwise shaking it up to that level risks losing some of the players we have in the hopes of getting new ones. That's a really risky proposition unless you're got some data that shows the ratio of those two is really good for the game.
  • YarithYarith Member Posts: 910 Fabled
    edited September 25
    I feel like you're going in the completely wrong bend of the hyperbola. 

    I'm pretty sure more people, newbies include, are excited and interested in constant if somewhat more inconsequential PVP alternatives than the complete neutering of PVP opportunity. 

    Lusternia has, in the interest of becoming less 'griefy', become oh so much more boring and pale in the past few years.
    == Professional Girl Gamer == 
    Yes I play games
    Yes I'm a girl
    get over it
Sign In or Register to comment.