Fine, fine. Here we see Hallifax in the foreground and Magnagora in the background as......
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
All this player-driven upheaval is so exciting! Everyone keep being trouble makers! For myself, this is probably the most exciting event to happen since I came to Lusty.
I always enjoyed Lusternia a bit more when alliances had the tendency to shift every 8-12 months. Kept things exciting and everyone grounded - Also made for better pvp in the long term.
Plus, you know, it's easier to ditch the polarization when your allies can become your enemies next month.
So yeah, definitely raves for all of this tomfoolery I'm hearing about
(Magnagora): Thax says, "My truest favour to the soldier that brings me the weave of Neos."
As much as I understand folks wanting to shift into 3v3 alliance mode I really wish we wouldn't. As much as the alliance change can make things fresh and new for a while if we just switch from one 3v3 to a new 3v3 it's going to get stale again.
I'm really hoping we can shake up the alliances and not just automatically drop into a here's the new boss same as the old boss routine.
I am skeptical that anything other than 3v3 is stable enough to even call an alliance. I think there's a Nash equilibrium at 3v3 to ensure you are never outnumbered but get your 'fair share of the spoils.' Maybe that's good, if stable alliances are thought to be bad. But I think any version of 4v2 or 2v2v2 (which in practice will be 4v2 with some variance as to who is 4 and who is 2) is likely to collapse under its own weight, and return to 3v3. Just my opinion.
The more interesting question to me is whether stable (aka long term) alliances are 'good.' I recognize that my knee-jerk reaction is to reject the idea of alliance changes because of friends in Celest/Seren, familiarity, etc. The comfort of the status quo. I'm curious what people think at the meta level (aka not specific to IF alliances are changing, or WHAT the changes are) about alliance changes.
Are stable alliances good for player retention? Or does the stability lead to staleness that depresses interest in current players, leading to turnover of existing players?
Do stable alliances entrench OOC biases (aka North v South) that negatively affect other aspects of the game? (aka community, envoys, etc). A specific example: given asymmetrical access to abilities, would a theoretical unstable, changing alliance landscape prevent people from 'burning out' or 'getting salty' at a particular class/skill/person that is perpetually on the other side, by a combination of humanizing the player and not always being on the receiving end?
I kinda think the current alliance system has stifiled PK a fair bit as
well. If you are going 3v3 you are limiting your options quite a lot. It's
also easy for a 3v3 the way numbers work to get unbalanced really
quickly. Which is what we saw last year where the two biggest orgs were fix linked. More fluid alliances would have allowed them to drop each other and go their own way making more conflict.
I'm not saying alliances are bad but super fixed never changing alliances are. For one you lose out on the sweet sweet political roleplay.
From a purely ooc game play perspective more fluid alliances would let folks create more balanced PK opportunities.
One
of the biggest complaints I heard when I started the game was that the
one side has the biggest numbers and there was almost no PK due to
fights being heavily one sided. Most villages/domoths had large numbers
on one side and a small resistance on the other.
If we have more
fluid alliances we're left in a situation where we can fix that
ourselves. Act like the HRE, lets fight amongst outselves a ton and band
together when one of us gets too strong. Hate everyone, love no one.
Ejderha is right. It's all game theory. In an every org for themselves situation, two orgs will eventually decide they hate another org enough to band together to beat them. Not wanting to be left out, the other orgs will then try to find themselves an alliance. We might just go straight back into a 3v3. Even if we don't, and get a 2v2v2 as an example, two of those alliances will decide that they would like to team up and win every time, so it becomes a 4v2 until two of the orgs decide they actually hate each other more, or the godmins step in (yes, they will and have stepped in) and we go back into the 3v3 climate again.
Also let's be honest. Most of us aren't here to create more balanced PK opportunities, or some skills wouldn't see as much use as they do.
I'll disagree with you
there about folks trying to make more balanced pk. There's been tons
of fights folks just don't join because the numbers are way out of
wack. I don't think you give people enough credit. Most folks want a
fun fair playing field.
Sure there is always going to be one
or two like you said who just care about wining instead of having a
good competition but the majority of folks want to have fun and
understand that requires balancedish numbers.
I'm just saying you can't expect players to not form the alliances that will help them win more, just as you can't expect them to not use skills that will help them win more.
Past performance is not always an indicator of future success. The whole point of an equilibrium state is that the system settles down in a stable configuration and rarely moves - you can have gradations of stability, and surely 2v2v2 is more stable than most other configurations. That doesn't mean it is as stable as 3v3 just because it has happened and persisted for some time.
I think the combination of population and high number of zero sum conflict events (villages, domoths, flares) make a three way alliance situation really unlikely. It would accentuate population differences between orgs (less coverage from allies by half on average), put even more burden on raid defenders, and potentially make every "defense" action outnumbered. The largest in game "community" each person is part of would shrink by 1/3 in a game where communities are already small. If you assume a more fluid alliance system, I think you have to assume the decisions would be based on organizational self interest, which would destabilize any system with more than two sides, since more allies (and avoiding being screwed by a 4v2 alliance against you) would always be a stronger position.
Example: RP wise, I could imagine Serenwilde going complete isolationist, refusing to work with cities or the Wyrd, yeah? In practice, it would be massively self defeating to have no allies in defense, villages, Domoths, etc. People don't like losing, increasing the chances they org hop, alt, or play something else.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Bascially winning the domoth fights but not having a demigod to claim. Was fun if a bit frustrating.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited October 2017
Throwback rave to when it was Glomdoring vs The World. No alliance, all death, murder, and fun. You can expect players to not dogpile until they win. Alliances aren't as inevitable as some people make them out to be. They're just the comfortable status quo.
Lose and get your ass kicked sometimes, it's not a big deal. The only time I ever got super annoyed at alliances was when Glom just had non aggression pacts with everyone and bored the crap out of me.
Raves! Getting back into the swing of things has been interesting... politics and drama reminiscent of older times... Anyway, thanks Oneiroi for turning the new Duum quests into honours quests!
#165 He has helped Constance Walker bring a colleague back to her senses.
#164 He has helped Elsa Fallows with her research.
#163 He has been marked by the Seal of Nature.
#162 He unlocked the mysteries of the Gem of Crys.
#161 He ousted the invading orcs and brought harmony to the lucidians of Syxsl.
#160 He triumphed against lucidian oppressors and freed the orcs of Mount Krog.
#159 He has helped Kurteba starve the Ice Tribes.
#158 He fulfilled the Dynodeon objectives of Project Red Dynara.
#157 He did assist Professor Pheslida Pheeif-Zluush with her scientific research.
#156 He carries the Iklaran Mark of the Bearer of Vessels.
The room descriptions in the Skarch are amazing. Deserts could be written lazily but instead there's a massive range of features. You can see the terrain shift from dusty near Gaudiguch, past the oasis, big sand dunes in the middle then south to the hills, Mesa and edge of the Scorpions Tail mountain range. All kinds of little nuggets in there.
It took me three attempts to do the Night Market segment that gets you to search the desert and I was still loving the descriptions.
The room descriptions in the Skarch are amazing. Deserts could be written lazily but instead there's a massive range of features. You can see the terrain shift from dusty near Gaudiguch, past the oasis, big sand dunes in the middle then south to the hills, Mesa and edge of the Scorpions Tail mountain range. All kinds of little nuggets in there.
It took me three attempts to do the Night Market segment that gets you to search the desert and I was still loving the descriptions.
I personally have felt this about nearly all places in lusternia. The amount of attention to detail in random places out in nowhere has been amazing and keeps amazing me.
Comments
Fine, fine. Here we see Hallifax in the foreground and Magnagora in the background as......
And it was good.
Thats a much better name
Plus, you know, it's easier to ditch the polarization when your allies can become your enemies next month.
So yeah, definitely raves for all of this tomfoolery I'm hearing about
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
I'm really hoping we can shake up the alliances and not just automatically drop into a here's the new boss same as the old boss routine.
The more interesting question to me is whether stable (aka long term) alliances are 'good.' I recognize that my knee-jerk reaction is to reject the idea of alliance changes because of friends in Celest/Seren, familiarity, etc. The comfort of the status quo. I'm curious what people think at the meta level (aka not specific to IF alliances are changing, or WHAT the changes are) about alliance changes.
Are stable alliances good for player retention? Or does the stability lead to staleness that depresses interest in current players, leading to turnover of existing players?
Do stable alliances entrench OOC biases (aka North v South) that negatively affect other aspects of the game? (aka community, envoys, etc). A specific example: given asymmetrical access to abilities, would a theoretical unstable, changing alliance landscape prevent people from 'burning out' or 'getting salty' at a particular class/skill/person that is perpetually on the other side, by a combination of humanizing the player and not always being on the receiving end?
I kinda think the current alliance system has stifiled PK a fair bit as well. If you are going 3v3 you are limiting your options quite a lot. It's also easy for a 3v3 the way numbers work to get unbalanced really quickly. Which is what we saw last year where the two biggest orgs were fix linked. More fluid alliances would have allowed them to drop each other and go their own way making more conflict.
I'm not saying alliances are bad but super fixed never changing alliances are. For one you lose out on the sweet sweet political roleplay.
From a purely ooc game play perspective more fluid alliances would let folks create more balanced PK opportunities.
One of the biggest complaints I heard when I started the game was that the one side has the biggest numbers and there was almost no PK due to fights being heavily one sided. Most villages/domoths had large numbers on one side and a small resistance on the other.
If we have more fluid alliances we're left in a situation where we can fix that ourselves. Act like the HRE, lets fight amongst outselves a ton and band together when one of us gets too strong. Hate everyone, love no one.
Also let's be honest. Most of us aren't here to create more balanced PK opportunities, or some skills wouldn't see as much use as they do.
I'll disagree with you there about folks trying to make more balanced pk. There's been tons of fights folks just don't join because the numbers are way out of wack. I don't think you give people enough credit. Most folks want a fun fair playing field.
Sure there is always going to be one or two like you said who just care about wining instead of having a good competition but the majority of folks want to have fun and understand that requires balancedish numbers.
I think the combination of population and high number of zero sum conflict events (villages, domoths, flares) make a three way alliance situation really unlikely. It would accentuate population differences between orgs (less coverage from allies by half on average), put even more burden on raid defenders, and potentially make every "defense" action outnumbered. The largest in game "community" each person is part of would shrink by 1/3 in a game where communities are already small. If you assume a more fluid alliance system, I think you have to assume the decisions would be based on organizational self interest, which would destabilize any system with more than two sides, since more allies (and avoiding being screwed by a 4v2 alliance against you) would always be a stronger position.
Example: RP wise, I could imagine Serenwilde going complete isolationist, refusing to work with cities or the Wyrd, yeah? In practice, it would be massively self defeating to have no allies in defense, villages, Domoths, etc. People don't like losing, increasing the chances they org hop, alt, or play something else.
On topic: Yay for the new secret feature on a branch today!
Lose and get your ass kicked sometimes, it's not a big deal. The only time I ever got super annoyed at alliances was when Glom just had non aggression pacts with everyone and bored the crap out of me.
It took me three attempts to do the Night Market segment that gets you to search the desert and I was still loving the descriptions.
Ianir bestmin.