Best Of
Re: Idea to help increase interaction
So yeah you don't prioritise them, you do thisKaindor said:The issue is which 3 to cut. If we do the three most dead I know Mag and Glom are the most populous do we cut Seren then since Glom overpopulated? I know Gaudi is relatively dead but i havent had a char in Halli in over a year how does it compare to Celest? And if we cut half of our orgs in order to help populate how many are going to leave because their org was cut? It's a vicious cycle and people have put a lot of effort in their community. I remember the excitement of the eye (of whatever it was) people completing that over and over in the hopes of getting halli and Gaudi released. How do you prioritize one commune over the other? Cutting an organization will have the opposite effect of what everyone wants.
Except that I wouldn't change skills, I mentioned it in this thread but effectively I'd do a big merge, pairing off the orgs creating something new based on the intersections of their rp.Crek said:Cut all of them. At the same time. Ideally replacing with fresh skillsets and orgs. There will be orgs largely populated by the same people, sure. But a full org reset would be the fairest solution. At least to me.
The Dynara-themed org might lay claim to Water, Air, Celestia, and Continuum, in turn having the linked classes. This way you save dev time right now and encourage people towards certain new orgs.
If you just deleted half the orgs and left the remainder then you would have a massive fallout because the refugees from the cut orgs would need to force themselves into existing structures and many would probably just leave.
Where cutting all and forging new orgs means that everyone starts relatively fresh in the new orgs.
Plus new orgs offer expansion, like a Nature themed org letting us get Ackle and Jojo skills or merged cities letting us have cross-elemental mages and the like.
Saran
1
Re: Why People are leaving the game
Case in point, I'm not apart of the larger discord, simply because I do not play well with others, nor do I want to hear a bunch of yammering is that is going to give me a headache and question why I joined. But those are my issues, and why I stay out of it, not the fault of the discord.
Lycidas
1
Re: Let's talk about Glomdoring.
I do agree with Synl that intra-org imbalance ("bard is better than mage"), while bad, leads to less frustration than external imbalance ("Loralaria is worse than Harbinger"). I can easily choose to play bard instead of mage if I think bard is better, and if I still do badly, then that's on me and no one else. I can't snap my fingers and become a Harbinger unless I move to Glom.
Aramel
4
Re: Let's talk about Glomdoring.
Every class being simply mirrored is just good game design. Wicca, Warrior, Druidry are largely ok. It's Night/Moon or the design behind monks/bards where problems really arise. It won't happen, and I understand it wasn't the point you were trying to make, but... good competitive game design uses equal availability for a reason. Imagine playing chess where only one black had knights, or like, I dunno, Overwatch and only one team can pick Widowmaker. Hell, even successful MMOs have mirrored classes (by and large), and they're hardly good competitive games. I can't imagine anyone who likes good competition arguing against mirrored classes.
Anyways, there was some traction earlier about bringing up the synergy of other orgs, I dunno why that discussion didn't take off.
Anyways, there was some traction earlier about bringing up the synergy of other orgs, I dunno why that discussion didn't take off.
Synl
3
Re: Let's talk about Glomdoring.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't bloodcap attacks build up to feed the barghest, which changes their dust based paralysis attack to an attack that causes damage and bleeding? Don't banshees either cause health or health and mana damage?Deichtine said:Just a concept on the idea of the bleeding rework.On the bleeding point.Shadowdancers have redcap but their kill revolves around aeon locking really. If you wanted you could swap the redcap bleed for some other effect without really changing how they work.Monks are all about the hemo and afflictions just like every other monk. They don't care so much about doing bleeding or bruising themselves.Druids are druids, up for a rework soon anyway so lets put a pin in them.Warriors are warriors. Pureblade cares about bleed but can't really build it much on its own and they could do with a report on sorting it out a bit anyway. Bonecrusher cares about brusing which is sort of like bleed but again doesn't really matter. Anyway point on warriors is their bleed/bruise stuff is secondary to their other issues and lets not go into that kettle of fish here.Shadowbeat is practically built around doing and buffing bleed. In a similar way that Mag bards are built around doing and buffing plagues. Being all bleedy and emo is Shadowdancers thing.
Just reviewing the classes and you really wouldn't need to make any major changes to any class or spec except for Harbinger if you did a total bleed overhaul.If bleeding itself is the issue getting a special report in to rework harbingers and bleed at the same time would I guess in my eyes be the best way to look at this.
Don't harbingers have a songeffect that accelerates this process as well as a song that increases the mana used to clot this bleeding away, as well as a song that makes you develop hemophilia, another that causes bleeding as well as paralysis if your bleeding is over a certain amount? Crowcaw also drains mana and causes bleeding, which synergizes with everything else.
Monks use hemo, but unless this has been removed, also cause vessels (also passive bleeding), hemophilia and other afflictions which feed bleeding. Once again, it's been a while, but they also at one point had a kill based entirely on....bleeding. Run away from them? Damage from hemo/bleeding/what have you.
I'm not even going to touch warriors after hearing that at least one of you had Marcella at 24k bleeding after ten seconds using Pureblade along with other passives.
Crow causes bleeding via several skills, including a passive that follows the druid around and can't be stopped except removing yourself from their enemy list, which is easily fixable. Instakill? Mana based. If it doesn't kill you, it still drains mana and if I'm not mistaken, more bleeding.
Shaddus
3
Re: Let's talk about Glomdoring.
But dust afflictions don't actually build deathmarks. Only two classes out of five can capitalise on deathmarks.Deichtine said:Kalnid said:Which dust aff builds deathmarks? Is it asthma? What about vomiting or pox, do those build deathmarks?
All dust afflictions will help build deathmarks yes. Its similar to how insanity or timewarp work in that you cure less of it when curing other afflictions.
How many classes in Glomdoring have skills which increase or feed off of bleeding and everything that entails?
Shaddus
1
Re: Let's talk about Glomdoring.
This is so important. I think it's only human nature for people (and admins are people) to want to hear that they made the right calls, that the status quo is the correct decision, that they did well. And Glomdoring is positive in that sense, because it's a lot easier to be positive when things are going well and the status quo is to your benefit. And that's not Glomdoring's fault either, but it is a result of the system, and a result of the many factors which led to Glom being "on top".Enya said:Mag HAD good synergy, not so much now. Note that the big org synergies are outside of the aff system. That's important~
------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to try and summarize my opinion on this, we had a long talk on the discord on the subject and I don't necessarily want to fully rehash without a chance to sit down and plan - but who knows when this will get locked so here we goooooooo.
When I say "Glomdoring" I mean exactly that, the organization as an institution. I do not mean "all of the players in Glom" or "Some notable players who play Glom". Not just to try and skirt forum rules or whatever, really: Glomdoring as a stand in for a culture exemplified there. I will specify when I'm talking about specific people or "those people" in a general sense, as culture is like the wind in that you can only see its effects as expressed by how it moves.
Glom has a culture that promotes certain types of rhetoric from its prominent players, that has spread through the Glom diaspora via players who would still be identified primarily as "Gloms" even after leaving to allied nations. It's one that ultimately is in ascendancy overall in the Real World as well, and has to do (I won't go into too much detail because it's long) with forced optimism and positivity as a moral stance.
Read the forums and you see prominent Gloms using rhetoric espousing this philosophy. In short I will try to sum it up:
-Remain positive
-Even if you are presenting critique
-Even if you are being attacked, take the high road
-Success comes if you are positive, success in gameplay and in balance changes.
-If you are failing therefore,it is (at least in part) because you were insufficiently positive
With the exception of the final point, these are all reasonable sounding axioms, and in general can be taken as a good ethos. The problem is that speech is not inherently neutral, it is an ACT embedded in context and inextricable with it. In other words: while possibly correct, bringing up an argument about the tone in which a position is being presented has a purpose, and that purpose in Lusternia is inevitably to pull the conversation away from the meat of the discussion at hand. An argument about pointing out the positivity or lack thereof of an argument is tone policing, a form of ad hominem... but ad hominems aren't bad per se.
Gasp, you read that correctly: Ad hominem's aren't necessarily bad... in fact, I think that they're necessary to some degree for a useful discussion! This is the case will all of the related fallacies, actually. A blind appeal to authority is bad, but at the end of the day it's not reasonable to explain to the degree of educating all participants to the same level, it's okay to have experts weigh in and appeal to their authority. Likewise, it's okay - necessary even - to invoke a genetic fallacy or two! In the thread about artifacts @Shaddusbegan interjecting with what (by their own account) were non-serious statements. From then out, it's probably safe to discount their statements: someone just wanting to stir the pot will say anything. The point of this digression is that you have to look at the impact of speech with an eye towards its utility, not just its form.
Back to Glomdoring. Part of what riles people up so much are statements to the effect of: "Your points didn't have impact because they were so negative; don't resort to personal attacks." Which is an ad hominem tone policing argument against said points in practical terms, while at the very same time asserting avoiding ad hominem attacks as an absolute good. What is the utility of this rhetoric? Well, in a niche community with a statistically super high population of relatively outcast people, it's to jam a massive thumb in everyone else's eye, even while the last point on my bullet points slaps everyone around. We can see pretty categorically that the majority of threads that get closed, the beginning of the end starts when this rhetoric is trotted out, and ends with it from administration.
Which comes to administration. There IS a "Glom bias". What I do not think there is, is a system of "I like Glomdoring's lore/players/admins/skills/design/npcs, and this player is from Glom and so I will listen to them". Possibly in very isolated situations, but come on. What I think is a better lens with which to view this is to take the (shoddy) rhetorical analysis above and think about what its ultimate effects are. Basically, Glom players philosophical rhetoric ingratiates them (or better put, ingratiated) them with administration by aligning their goals with those of the admin team. Some mistake is made with the release of a thing, there is player outcry, some players come in and say something to the effect of "Well we should critique this, but why can't we be more positive and friendly about it". This does two things: A) has the effect of shutting down the content argument, shifting the conversation to a form argument, andmollifies the sensibilities of administration. After all, they aren't 'shutting down discussion', they're insisting on "doing it the right way", even if the net effect is still for the discussion to end.
How do we get from there to a systemic Glom bias instead of just a bias towards "some glom players"? Players with this sort of attitude pass through the ephemeral process more easily, while others become increasingly frustrated with the inherent contradiction even if, or especially if, they can't put their finger on why it bothers them so much. This, the makeup of the administrative team shifts. Just as players clearly self-segregate over time and form pretty resilient org philosophies, regardless of the generally shifting populations, the admin team too forms a general culture that persists and self-selects. That culture and Glom's align, thus the "Glom ethos" tends to 'catch more flies'. This isn't a natural and inviolate law of the universe, it's the direct result of choices made by individuals, and shaped by the constraints/policies provided. It's fixable, but you have to want to fix it.
PS:
Positivity culture and corporate optimism overall is very bad and highly ascendant IRL too, which is part of why it's so dominant here. Google for articles or I can add them tomorrow, have a dinner date to go to.
Since everyone has been citing people who left - I am one of them. I stopped playing in February 2018, shortly after last ascension. I stopped playing for my own mental health, partly because I was being legitimately upset on an OOC level about things that were happening in a game. But I also stopped playing because of the Eight Deadly Words, which writers will be familiar with:
I don't care what happens to these people.
And by these people, I mean my character, other characters in the game with me, and my perception of my ability to make a meaningful impact. I was both a roleplayer and a pvper. I was a vernal ascendant. I fought in almost every domoth for the better part of a year. I experienced Glomdoring skills many times, first hand, when I would die in 5-6 seconds to Shadowdancers. I went back up and I kept doing it, because my friends were playing and I wanted to help them and be useful to them in a fight. I trained up at least five different combat newbs so we would have more bodies, even as I felt at a mechanical disadvantage against Glomdoring and their skills and synergy. I had hope that it would get better, and in the meantime I wanted to help my org and my alliance.
What made me quit playing was the realization that it wasn't going to happen, and one too many instances of bring an issue up on the forums and being met with deflection and told that I and my friends just needed to get good, by some of the usual suspects that others have brought up here in this thread. I quit because I became convinced that Glomdoring was on top, would always be on top as long as these players kept playing, that it had intentional or unintentional admin support to continue being on top, and that nothing I do could ever move the needle. I couldn't afford to care anymore.
And sure, the same people could say to me, "But it isn't like that, you are just perceiving it to be that way." I don't think I am. I really do think that Glomdoring skills are superior, and that's why my honest suggestion to the admin back in the day was that they should try to give every org the same skills, reskinned, and see who protested loudest - that would be the org whose skills were the most "overpowered" in the status quo. But even aside from that, a perception problem is a real problem. People leave and move to other games because of "perception problems". I was one of them. I was convinced to log in again last week, albeit with a resolution to avoid pvp, but many people, including most of my Lusternia friends from when I last played, are never coming back.
Aramel
8
Re: Idea to help increase interaction
The issue is which 3 to cut. If we do the three most dead I know Mag and Glom are the most populous do we cut Seren then since Glom overpopulated? I know Gaudi is relatively dead but i havent had a char in Halli in over a year how does it compare to Celest? And if we cut half of our orgs in order to help populate how many are going to leave because their org was cut? It's a vicious cycle and people have put a lot of effort in their community. I remember the excitement of the eye (of whatever it was) people completing that over and over in the hopes of getting halli and Gaudi released. How do you prioritize one commune over the other? Cutting an organization will have the opposite effect of what everyone wants.
Kaindor
1
Re: Why People are leaving the game
As an aside, probs worth keeping in mind that, given the admin interaction on the discord server there can be a pressure for some to be there also.Ellowyn said:
Same thing happens with the forums really, it can at least look like decisions are made through discussions on certain mediums so if you're not on those you're not included.
Saran
3
Re: Artifact Review
We're not changing scent at this time, in any fashion. At this point it's devolved to a circular argument where the same person is saying that 1) it's not mandatory, you need to do groundwork and 2) It's a required artifact that everyone needs. Time to move on.
When we're reviewing artifacts, we're looking at those ones that people, in general, complain about on a regular basis. The ones that after a fight, people will say 'if it wasn't for purify' or 'if it wasn't for illusoryself, that would have gone differently.' The ones that people in general talk about when we bring up feedback threads. The ones that people think are breaking game balance.
Every time I've asked this question, I get answers I don't expect, such as scent/vital runes/ another miscellaneous artifact. Some of these things have been involved for over a decade, from a time that the population was larger and healthier, and while that doesn't mean they are balanced and fair, it also means that they didn't break the game in a way these others have.
Lastly, you all need to cool it with the condescension. We're not accomplishing anything by sniping at each other. and I mean 'you all'. Any further comments along those lines will be deleted. You can defend yourself and your position without resorting to name-calling and aggression.
When we're reviewing artifacts, we're looking at those ones that people, in general, complain about on a regular basis. The ones that after a fight, people will say 'if it wasn't for purify' or 'if it wasn't for illusoryself, that would have gone differently.' The ones that people in general talk about when we bring up feedback threads. The ones that people think are breaking game balance.
Every time I've asked this question, I get answers I don't expect, such as scent/vital runes/ another miscellaneous artifact. Some of these things have been involved for over a decade, from a time that the population was larger and healthier, and while that doesn't mean they are balanced and fair, it also means that they didn't break the game in a way these others have.
Lastly, you all need to cool it with the condescension. We're not accomplishing anything by sniping at each other. and I mean 'you all'. Any further comments along those lines will be deleted. You can defend yourself and your position without resorting to name-calling and aggression.
Orael
6
(c) Iron Realms Entertainment 2012.