Best Of

Popular Opinion: Punish forum instigators instead of our wonderful threads

I would say the bigger problem is the character is more than a set of abilities. Some kind of ability to wipe the slate clean and start in a new org. Or just transfer artifacts. That'd be ideal. If your character has existed for 15 real life years, you can transfer all your artifacts to a new character!

Perhaps a system could be implemented to allow for transfers and without losing lessons. Let's use you, Kagato, and say you re going to leave Celest. You decide to approach Alaksanteri about joining Gaudiguch instead and come to an agreement that you would be accepted. A new command could be added to those that can citizen to cities/communes:

CITIZEN person AS TRANSFER, would then send a prompt to the person to either AGREE or TRANSFER TO GAUDIGUCH CONFIRM, whatever method is decided upon. This would then in one command, have Kagato leave Celest and forget their currect class skills, refunding them to their main lesson pools (Body/Empathy/Mind/Artistry/Spirit) so that they can be freely transferred between those pools at no penalty. As Kagato pointed out, Healing would go to Spirit instead of Willpower. This then allows them to blend in at no loss and leaving inactive skills alone, with those following the normal penalties for forgetting. How's this sound?

Synl said:

The deleting orgs/changing alliances systems seem silly to talk about because we know they won't happen. The former because... come on. And the latter because it would either need to be actively policed by admins or be entirely reliant on the players taking it easy. So again, come on.

Hard coded limits, again, what's the problem? The causing feelings to go down system that Anak suggested seems fine to me, too, because, in practicality, it seems the same as a hard coded limit system. If Glomdoring cannot physical enter any villages during a revolt after they've taken 3, for example, then they can't play bodyguard to another org, either. So numbers balance out. Right?

(I'm also against the empire idea because it seems that's exactly what the problem is. The Holy Glomdoring Empire has risen. So. Isn't that what we want to avoid?)

Simple, if you force people out of conflict mechanics, they will find ways around them. Take domoths where Glomdoring often gave domoths to both Celest and Gaudiguch so they could fight in both. The same will happen in villages if you start messing with harsh discouragement systems. These people are playing cause they enjoy pvp more so than the limited worth of the reward for said pvp. (This is obviously not true for all Glomdoring players but at least some).

Even if they want the reward these people that play for pvp will just make alts in their allied orgs.

That is the big flaw. You need to make pvp possible while also making it balanced, not balance by making it impossible to participate by a certain group.

Biggest thing that has always stopped me even entertaining the notion of changing to another city/commune has to be the cost of forgetting/learning three new skillsets when you are tri-trans.  Currently, you lose 20% of the 1,715 lessons upon forgetting a skillset permanently (343 lessons).  If you decide to take up a skillset that falls in a different lesson pool (for example forgetting Healing, which is in the "Willpower" skillset and transferring lessons to Hunting, which is in the "Communion" skillset) you lose a further 30% of your lessons - another 412 lessons.  

Converting this over to credits, if you change to a new city/commune and change archetype, to return to tri-trans, you are looking at up to 378 credits being spent purely on lessons in a worst-case scenario, or 174 credits just to change to something within the same archetype, assuming they can learn the same tertiary skills (For example Illuminati can not learn the healing skillset, if I am not mistaken - according to the wiki, they can learn Hexes or Tarot)

I think that it should be given some consideration to lessen this prohibitive cost, given the current situation of Lusternia, or perhaps, like reincarnation, an option/command be made available that gives a one-off opportunity to forget your skillsets without penalty.

Do you mean actual cities, or orgs? I'm going to roll with orgs, which has been a suggestion for a while as well in other threads.

Kistan said:

Innon said:

Synl said:

Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.

Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.

Also, I have seen some hold back. I literally am not playing in my favorite org because of this. That means I did at least put my money where my mouth is. I also suggested more than once that a 2v2v2 would work out better. 

2 Possible (Realistic) Options:
Option 1:
Glom/Seren
Celest/Gaudi
Mag/Halli

Option 2:
Glom/Seren 
Celest/Halli
Mag/Gaudi

Wouldn't getting rid of three cities make this even easier? Then you would not be forced into alliances nobody was happy with but nobody could break?

In theory yes. Trinity systems have a lot of advantages in balancing but only if it allows wars on two fronts per org and the player balance does not go way out of wack.

An dynamic alliance system in a trinity has the advantage that you can steer the population, so if the population gets out of wack you can create new alliances that are more balanced.

Those are theories though, in reality alliances will not shift so easily because you build relationships with people in your alliance. Likewise it would be hard to play with 'enemy' orgs cause sometimes things happened which egoes oocly.

I wish to point out as long as alliances are not mechanicly recognised, no pvp gating based on numbers will work unless the numbers are so low the game might as well be a wargames arena event.

Well, the numbers advantage, not really sure how that gets addressed outside of people just changing orgs themselves. What do people want to see change regarding numbers? Innon said people should stay out of conflict if the numbers are heavily weighted, which I've seen people already do during non-beneficial conflict (ie. Glom raids Nil, realizes there are too many raiders vs defenders, some Gloms step away to try even the numbers). It'd be a hard thing to ask in conflicts like villages or Domoths, though, because mechanical benefits are mechanical benefits. Even harder to enforce.

Unless we put hardcaps in place. Like I suggested. I'm sure there's a downside here that I'm not seeing, but why not just make it so if you hold 3 villages, you literally cannot enter any more villages during revolts? Even with a 'dominating' alliance holding 9 villages, that leaves enough for the other orgs to have villages. So it's still possible to 'win', but not to the point of utter domination. Wildnodes, you win this time, you cannot enter astral next time.