Because people don't want to write, that takes effort!
Some of us are writing 6+ essays every 3 months (okay maybe just me) on top of regular assignments and reports for various other life matters once a week, some of which for government organisations so a bunch of bloody redtape to tackle too. Preventing an organisation that might be full of people who either do not have the ability or the inclination detracts from the equity of an organisation's ability to complete on all levels. Perhaps it is less about applying effort and more about what is viable for the playerbase at large.
I won't even touch on the fact that it has been made clear that what is published is not held to standards of any kind but merely admin's personal preference and feelings towards the author.
We just don't have the population to support fierce library competitions given that the people who do enjoy that aspect of the game tend to flock to particular organisations.
Preventing an organisation that might be full of people who either do not have the ability or the inclination detracts from the equity of an organisation's ability to complete on all levels. Perhaps it is less about applying effort and more about what is viable for the playerbase at large.
So Domoths, that a large portion of the playerbase does not have the ability or the inclination, would also detract from the equity of the ability to compete. There are standards for publication, and just because you don't agree with those standards and see them as not real isn't really the issue. The publishing system is fine the way it is, and honestly shouldn't be taking hits because people don't want to write.
Of course people are writing essays and business reports in their daily lives, that is not the point. If your character isn't a writer, then don't write! But there are people like @Kistan who thrive on this and find a lot of enjoyment in it. He's just one example as there are people who enjoy writing stage performances and books. If it isn't your forte, no worries, but attempting to change how this works so that effort isn't exerted into this one aspect of the game that is so underutilized just to have a way to avoid it and 'Win The Every Category' is achievable is dull at best.
Because people don't want to write, that takes effort!
Some of us are writing 6+ essays every 3 months (okay maybe just me) on top of regular assignments and reports for various other life matters once a week, some of which for government organisations so a bunch of bloody redtape to tackle too. Preventing an organisation that might be full of people who either do not have the ability or the inclination detracts from the equity of an organisation's ability to complete on all levels. Perhaps it is less about applying effort and more about what is viable for the playerbase at large.
I won't even touch on the fact that it has been made clear that what is published is not held to standards of any kind but merely admin's personal preference and feelings towards the author.
We just don't have the population to support fierce library competitions given that the people who do enjoy that aspect of the game tend to flock to particular organisations.
1) Your second statement is false. If you have any issues with the way a book has been handled, you can always email support@lusternia.com. Please refrain from making false claims such as this in the future.
2) It's an org-based competition, not an individual one. If you don't want to write a book, then don't. That doesn't mean someone else in your org doesn't enjoy doing so or that your org cannot foster an environment to promote those that do. The entire point of having multiple ways to take part is to encourage and allow anyone to contribute in some way.
A large portion of the playerbase indulge in combat from all organisations. It is also the main draw of the game.
*removed a part of the statement that was fundamentally incorrect, again, email support@lusternia.com if you have an issue with the way something was judged or if you do not understand the reasoning. - Orael
Writing books or what not for culture is a very niche aspect of the game, comparing it to the main conflict mechanism of the game is not a fair representation of comparative value between organisations where domoths held vs culture gained is concerned.
If we had an even spread of players in all organisations that indulged in all the aspects of the game then it would be fair to expect that level of participation for culture. This is less about effort for one task to win culture and the availability of tasks in which players can place their effort to participate in culture conflict. Sort of like how some people want different ways to earn credits in FTP because not everyone can bash 600 mobs in 2 seconds flat with a beefed up swordcannon.
I don't understand how you can make a comment about some people wanting to different ways to earn credits in FTP but don't see the same value in having multiple ways to contribute to the org competition.
I don't understand how you can make a comment about some people wanting to different ways to earn credits in FTP but don't see the same value in having multiple ways to contribute to the org competition.
Is there competition if an organisation does not have a way to complete? If you have a wheelchair race and only some of the people have wheelchairs is it really a fair race?
Edit: All I am saying is, there is a clear discrepancy in the ability for all (not even Glomdoring here) orgs to participate in culture, why not even things out a little since the population has decreased and the players who write are -mostly- all in two or three orgs? I don't think it is unreasonable to have a little conversation about it. But fight me if you wanna.
This isn't solely about culture. This is about competing for the yearly organization competition. Culture is one aspect of that. There are other ways for people to compete whether they like culture, whether they like combat or what not. Everybody can compete
I agree with that, all I am saying is that culture is limited in the ways that everyone can contribute and it would be nice for there to be additional ways or boosts to some of the smaller methods due to the very clear discrepancies in the competition right now. I'm not asking anyone to chop an arm off, just look at the data and see if there is a way to involve more people in culture outside of plays and books.
Edit: and who knows, those ways might encourage more people to get involved in writing plays and books. Gods know how intimidating those systems are to enter, once you are more familiar with the systems and see how you can contribute someone is more inclined to give it a go. It's just a freaking suggestion. One that may or may not benefit the game.
Domoths are the only generally available form of conflict on a reasonably reoccurring basis. If you do not want to compete, then fine (same as the argument for not competing in books/plays).
My only suggestion is that the weighting for domoths should be low (1 point per person encourages doing it when more people are around instead of just sneaking it in). No rewards for victory, domoths already give plenty. But at least let them contribute just like other competitive stuff (including cultural stuff).
In the end we want more people to be doing more things. Adding more to the system is therefore a good thing to my mind. Remove nothing; add more.
Edit: We had a nice little fight for Death last night. Magnagora and Hallifax would have earned some org points for showing up and fighting; they had 5-6 vs. our 4 so would have actually netted more points via my suggestion. Personally I think that is fine because it is encouraging you to try. You still get something for it for yourself (a credit tick) and you gain an advantage on the org chart vs. just letting the enemy get free points.
And I am saying...add more to culture. Give us more ways to participate in an awesome conflict mechanism that is on par or closer in value to that of writing books/plays. I mean. Or don't. And leave culture without any real competition outside of what 2 orgs currently? I haven't been watching culture for a long time but I am seeing a pattern and I'd love to see variety. Just like we want to see more people challenging domoths/revolts/flares! Why should culture miss out?
What other things would you suggest that currently exist as actual cultural things? I would not want to shove non-culture things into that tag (domoths are definitely not cultural).
Designs? I could see designing adding a small bit to encourage that. There could even be a bounty program: "We are low on X designs for general use, designs of this type for the year which are public or in the related org cartel get a 2x bonus" or something (granted to the DesignedBy's org upon design acceptance).
If you look at the bottom of the first post, designs are already there. Granted, it only makes mention of public design - which I guess would be to enhance selection choices for all. I've always been all for that, but I guess if that remains included I gotta be ready to flex even harder...
What suggestions do you have for adding more to culture? We're not going to link conflict mechanics with culture mechanics because we feel it's important to keep them separate for the reasons already given.
We want to promote conflict. Domoths are tricky because they are player-controlled for most of their time, and as has been mentioned numerous times, if players can game it, they will. There are already complaints that people only domoth when it's safe. I feel this will exacerbate that problem if we add them to org scores. We've added daily credit rewards for domoths (which is for each domoth btw, not limited to 1/day).
With villages/flares/nodes, they are on random timers and you get org participate/wins for each one you participate/win in. If the Mountain Wars erupt, you could potentially get 50 points from just participation for your Org and up to 125 points if you manage to win them all (which is super unlikely).
There are multiple ways to engage and take part. I don't think it's going to be a giant discrepancy, but we will monitor it and make changes as needed.
I never suggested anything combative, I think culture should remain cultured. There may be things there that I don't know about, I haven't been involved in the culture conflict long. Just long enough to see a pattern.
I think Xenthos is onto something about designs. I think something less subjective would be nice though. Because what one person might think is worth 500 credits another might read as junk. I like a lot of designs by some that others don't, it's 4am, so ideas aren't really coming to me right this moment but if I think of any I'll throw them here. I just think it is worth discussing and noting is all. And to be told "you just don't wanna put the effort into winning" while been given only one real method of winning is a slap in the face to lots of people who do put in the effort in their orgs writing. Because I know when we do have writers they can't do it alone against 4-5 others in one org who write consistently. It is unbalanced as I see it. And not from my perspective, from someone else's.
See my post above yours re: designs. That is the only other thing that comes to mind for culture stuff as-is...
Well, unless certain lore related quests are flagged as cultural and doing them nets rewards (1x per person per year?). I can't see that going live with the rest of the system, would take a little time, but could potentially be something.
Regarding domoths: That is why I think making it a very low point count per person is worthwhile. If you try to game it to when nobody is around, the benefits are minimal. You could even make it so at least 5 people (or some other number) have to show for it to count. But basically I strongly feel it should be added to the system to encourage contesting (and anything that encourages upgrades when competition is available is a good thing to my mind, that death fight last night was a fun skirmish and the kind of thing we should be trying to get more of).
Are org credit scores the same as culture scores or are we somehow discussing two different aspects of the game here? Because I was discussing the ability to affect culture scores not what I think you are discussing which appears to be org credits from FTP?
Are org credit scores the same as culture scores or are we somehow discussing two different aspects of the game here? Because I was discussing the ability to affect culture scores not what I think you are discussing which appears to be org credits from FTP?
This entire thread is for the Daily Credits and the Org credits from FTP. I assumed that since you are posting in the thread about Daily Credits and Org credits from FTP, anything you were saying was in regards to those mechanics and how they function. If that is not the case, then that discussion can be held elsewhere but all my response have been in reference to Daily Credits and Org Credits from FTP.
Just an idea for spitballing in how to increase org credit participation, so many points for each active Greathouse in that Org that didn't lose honour that year. Makes families worth a bit more overall and would foster encouragement for those families to increase their honour. I'd even go so far as to say top (insert number) Greathouse(s) double their contribution to the org to make it more competitive to the Basin, rather than just within your Org for a Council spot you may or may not be entitled to (Looking at Report 01191404).
Is there going to be a command to see how many credits you've earned in a particular day and their source?
Yes. DAILYCREDITS and ORGCREDITS are what they are called on Test at the moment. The daily credits one breaks out what you earned so you can track it pretty easily.
Did we get a way to track our progress to earning said credits yet on the test server? I haven't hopped on today to check just yet since I'm still at work.
We've adjusted how publications count. They will now add their 'weight' value in points at the time of publication (winning literary/scholarly won't add more points).
This means one book of 50 weight or 50 books of 1 weight will max it out for the year.
Additionally, the prestige awards are only every other IC year.
I'm really not sure why it's an issue though, there is nothing stopping orgs from winning both villages/flares/nodes and participating in library/theater/ikon systems to take advantage of both sides.
Mainly to give balance to the rewards.
The current points are saying that conflict isn't really important to winning the top orgs chart writing books is.
I like that books add to the points I just feel that conflict and other things should also add in a similar manner.
Perhaps quest completions and quest rankings can add to the org score as well.
Eg Lets say I complete the Delport quest the most times in a year I add 1 point to the org scores. (Maybe points scale as well. Doing harder ones get harder org points)
How are published books making conflict less important? You mean the one or two that get published each game year from the orgs that partake dominate org scores?
We've adjusted how publications count. They will now add their 'weight' value in points at the time of publication (winning literary/scholarly won't add more points).
This means one book of 50 weight or 50 books of 1 weight will max it out for the year.
Additionally, the prestige awards are only every other IC year.
I'm really not sure why it's an issue though, there is nothing stopping orgs from winning both villages/flares/nodes and participating in library/theater/ikon systems to take advantage of both sides.
Mainly to give balance to the rewards.
The current points are saying that conflict isn't really important to winning the top orgs chart writing books is.
I like that books add to the points I just feel that conflict and other things should also add in a similar manner.
I don't think that's the case. I think we're offering a system where all players can contribute and participate in.
1) Your second statement is false. If you have any issues with the way a book has been handled, you can always email support@lusternia.com. Please refrain from making false claims such as this in the future.
If that's the case, would you mind listing out precisely what issues will cause a book to be pulled, as well as publicly tagging each newly rejected book in future so as to make it clear and serve as demonstration? The continued refusal to make rejection reasons visibly documented causes problems not only for librarians and authors trying to identify standards, but also for future admins when someone three years down the line goes 'wait why was this rejected I can't see anything wrong with this'.
1) Your second statement is false. If you have any issues with the way a book has been handled, you can always email support@lusternia.com. Please refrain from making false claims such as this in the future.
If that's the case, would you mind listing out precisely what issues will cause a book to be pulled, as well as publicly tagging each newly rejected book in future so as to make it clear and serve as demonstration? The continued refusal to make rejection reasons visibly documented causes problems not only for librarians and authors trying to identify standards, but also for future admins when someone three years down the line goes 'wait why was this rejected I can't see anything wrong with this'.
If you want to start another thread asking for this, feel free, but this isn't the place to discuss this.
Comments
It really does.
I won't even touch on the fact that it has been made clear that what is published is not held to standards of any kind but merely admin's personal preference and feelings towards the author.
We just don't have the population to support fierce library competitions given that the people who do enjoy that aspect of the game tend to flock to particular organisations.
1) Your second statement is false. If you have any issues with the way a book has been handled, you can always email support@lusternia.com. Please refrain from making false claims such as this in the future.
2) It's an org-based competition, not an individual one. If you don't want to write a book, then don't. That doesn't mean someone else in your org doesn't enjoy doing so or that your org cannot foster an environment to promote those that do. The entire point of having multiple ways to take part is to encourage and allow anyone to contribute in some way.
*removed a part of the statement that was fundamentally incorrect, again, email support@lusternia.com if you have an issue with the way something was judged or if you do not understand the reasoning. - Orael
Writing books or what not for culture is a very niche aspect of the game, comparing it to the main conflict mechanism of the game is not a fair representation of comparative value between organisations where domoths held vs culture gained is concerned.
If we had an even spread of players in all organisations that indulged in all the aspects of the game then it would be fair to expect that level of participation for culture. This is less about effort for one task to win culture and the availability of tasks in which players can place their effort to participate in culture conflict. Sort of like how some people want different ways to earn credits in FTP because not everyone can bash 600 mobs in 2 seconds flat with a beefed up swordcannon.
Edit: All I am saying is, there is a clear discrepancy in the ability for all (not even Glomdoring here) orgs to participate in culture, why not even things out a little since the population has decreased and the players who write are -mostly- all in two or three orgs? I don't think it is unreasonable to have a little conversation about it. But fight me if you wanna.
This isn't solely about culture. This is about competing for the yearly organization competition. Culture is one aspect of that. There are other ways for people to compete whether they like culture, whether they like combat or what not. Everybody can compete
Edit: and who knows, those ways might encourage more people to get involved in writing plays and books. Gods know how intimidating those systems are to enter, once you are more familiar with the systems and see how you can contribute someone is more inclined to give it a go. It's just a freaking suggestion. One that may or may not benefit the game.
We want to promote conflict. Domoths are tricky because they are player-controlled for most of their time, and as has been mentioned numerous times, if players can game it, they will. There are already complaints that people only domoth when it's safe. I feel this will exacerbate that problem if we add them to org scores. We've added daily credit rewards for domoths (which is for each domoth btw, not limited to 1/day).
With villages/flares/nodes, they are on random timers and you get org participate/wins for each one you participate/win in. If the Mountain Wars erupt, you could potentially get 50 points from just participation for your Org and up to 125 points if you manage to win them all (which is super unlikely).
There are multiple ways to engage and take part. I don't think it's going to be a giant discrepancy, but we will monitor it and make changes as needed.
I think Xenthos is onto something about designs. I think something less subjective would be nice though. Because what one person might think is worth 500 credits another might read as junk. I like a lot of designs by some that others don't, it's 4am, so ideas aren't really coming to me right this moment but if I think of any I'll throw them here. I just think it is worth discussing and noting is all. And to be told "you just don't wanna put the effort into winning" while been given only one real method of winning is a slap in the face to lots of people who do put in the effort in their orgs writing. Because I know when we do have writers they can't do it alone against 4-5 others in one org who write consistently. It is unbalanced as I see it. And not from my perspective, from someone else's.
This entire thread is for the Daily Credits and the Org credits from FTP. I assumed that since you are posting in the thread about Daily Credits and Org credits from FTP, anything you were saying was in regards to those mechanics and how they function. If that is not the case, then that discussion can be held elsewhere but all my response have been in reference to Daily Credits and Org Credits from FTP.
Mainly to give balance to the rewards.
The current points are saying that conflict isn't really important to winning the top orgs chart writing books is.
I like that books add to the points I just feel that conflict and other things should also add in a similar manner.
Perhaps quest completions and quest rankings can add to the org score as well.
Eg Lets say I complete the Delport quest the most times in a year I add 1 point to the org scores. (Maybe points scale as well. Doing harder ones get harder org points)