Reducing the Number of Player Orgs

2456721

Comments

  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 140 Gifted
    I think that comes back to deleting orgs rather than merging them then.
    Even if the orgs are merged, one of the orgs will likely need to be used as the 'base', both for mechanical reasons and for lore given that creating new orgs is not feasible.
    At that point, it is the same as deleting three of the orgs and giving the other orgs something to make them appeal to the players of the deleted orgs, whether you call it deletion or merging.
  • AfolliaAfollia Member Posts: 56 Apprentice
    edited April 24
    @Estarra

    This feels like a wonderful debate, so thank you for opening it. My concerns will most likely echo those written before me but, here I go! Please keep in mind i'm not the most experienced in Lusternia, but I do wish to throw out a few ideas to help.


    Let's forget the lore for a minute,

    If we are open to risk losing part of the player base by deleting Organisation that are too empty, let's put population our priority instead of story.

    We can use organisations that have a healthy leadership and healthy guilds to promote the in-game dynamics & player base, then build up the lore to support it.

    I'll use Glomdoring & Serenwilde as an example:

    ..............................................................................................

    Glomdoring & Serenwilde are both Nature

    -Serenwilde is Wilde nature
    -Glomdoring is Wyrden nature

    Both care & love the fae of faethorn, in their own way.

    Glomdoring just isn't ''Pure'' forest or Wilde. Civilisation is extremely disliked roleplay wise & converting / spreading the Wyrd is a really important aspect of it.

    If Serenwilde were to be considered for deletion due to low population. It's not far fetched to see Glomdoring converting Serenwilde and turning into another Wyrden forest, spreading the ''consumption of the first world''. Faethorn integrity would be able to be preserved so long as Mother Night remained and there's no reason Moondancers couldnt be ''converted'' as well.

    Wyrden Moon Avatars ? Yes please.

    No reason they should be Glom friendly either. I could absolutly see something going - very - wrong with trying to convert Wilde into Wyrden and the place becoming hostile to all players. Glomdoring then having to take it into their hands to care for serenwilde and complete the full transformation. While their actions threaten the anchors of the Mother Moonheart in ethereal & prime, forcing the remaining orgs to try to protect existence from their actions.

    <insert quest series, hunting grounds & events>

    .............................................................................................

    Deleting low pop Orgs could be a way to remake the dynamic inside the basin of life.

    High pop orgs could become a very ''real'' threat in the present moment as they absorb \ convert the area controlled by a deleted organisation. While those areas dont neccessarily have to turn out like expected. 

    How to choose orgs?

    If ''High activity vs No activity'' isn't enough. Why not hold an in-game vote in each org ? Giving people a chance to protect the orgs they care about the most. Then choosing to write the story going forward in a way that the player base would love.

    Finally the dynamic of 1 vs 1 vs 1 could change too. Tradeskills could evolve to reflect a newly rebuilt\remade world.

    Looking at you Salt commodity, enchanting goods & potions.

    So here's a few ideas for this thread going forward!
    Hope you all enjoy

    -Afollia
  • RhykerRhyker Member Posts: 3 Novice
    edited April 24
    Tarkenton here. I don't play anymore, obviously, just have this character floating around because he didn't ever have enough value to get rid of. But when I heard from friends that this was going to happen, I felt I should toss my two sovereigns in.
    That being said, this is a ship that's long past due coming in to port. Back many moons ago when I peaced out this needed to happen due to the player base numbers. At this point, any org you delete is going to result in player butthurt and losing potentially a large portion of the player base if the more populated orgs are cut over the less populated ones. Can't say I blame them, when for some you're talking what, a literal decade or close to it of investment into? That being said, it does need to happen. This is one of the many times that The Vision™ needs to be put aside in favor of mechanics. If you want to retain as much of the player base as possible, delete the lowest population orgs. If that means that it's just Glom/Mag/Gaudi left, so be it. Keeping your higher populations as opposed to your lower populations just makes sense.
    I don't envision that happening. It'll be Glom, Gaudi, and Halli put on the chopping block, and hey, it's your game and you'll do with it what you want. But try actually taking player feedback into consideration here. Otherwise, the "empty-feeling" game is just going to empty, period.
  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,135 Transcendent
    Or we could cleanse the taint out of Glomdoring, and make it normal forest.

    Purified Night Avatars? Yes, please.
    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.
  • SazSaz Member Posts: 178 Master
    High activity vs. No activity argument is invalid because you don't account for the actual causes of those activity levels in the first place and just name it a disparity in "healthy" leadership and structure.

    Of course I want Hallifax to stay, but if it isn't possible to have a Mag+Hallifax scenario for the science and high society aspects of the game, then keeping Seren-Celest-Mag is probably the better route. And finally, it pains me to not say #DeleteSerenwilde, when an opportunity like this is presented. But it does seem like the better idea to keep it.

    ... For now.
     "Oh the year was 453CE, how I wish I was in Serenwilde now... aletter of marque come from the regent to the scummiest aethership I ever seen, gods damn them all...I was told we'd cruise the void for auronidion and dust, we'd fire no turrets, shed no tears.. now I'm a broken man on a Hallifax tier, the last of Saz's privateers."

    -Kilian
  • JolantheJolanthe Member Posts: 256 Gifted
    edited April 24
    I have a rather ambivalent feel towards this, but find myself in general agreement with Shaddus. The change in guilds was a rough transition and while I was relatively unattached to the originals, I feel even less identity with the new ones. The remaining pbase would need to be -really- committed for org deletion to not just cause more people to fade out.

    My only suggestion is if you delete orgs, don't delete the contents of their anchored cartels - turn all those designs public.

    EDIT: Also want to express that I would totally be down for a Gaudi-Halli merging moment. I like the idea of commune/religious city/pragmatic city as a division on a three way, though it may not be feasible with resources as is. I don't enjoy zealot-y RP for any long periods so leaving orgs that only extol rah-rah-zealotry will just mean I don't get to fit in anywhere.

  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,135 Transcendent
    Since my tongue in cheek response was probably a bit vague....I'll just say that I think the idea of feeding an org to its polar opposite and  basically saying "this side won" is a horrible idea for many reasons.
    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.
  • JolantheJolanthe Member Posts: 256 Gifted
    Shaddus said:
    Since my tongue in cheek response was probably a bit vague....I'll just say that I think the idea of feeding an org to its polar opposite and  basically saying "this side won" is a horrible idea for many reasons.
    Yeah, it would basically have to be an entirely new beast, which is why it's probably not feasible at all.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    So far, here on the forums and the discord server, there isn't much of a "Don't go through with this" as much of a "Don't delete my org". I think the majority of people are nodding that yes this needs to happen, it just becomes a matter of -HOW- it happens. I'd like to propose we find a compromise between what @Estarra and @Orael want and can achieve and what we the playerbase want and can support. Nobody here wants to see their home deleted, their character's backstory just shot to the wind, and I think that is well understood by all parties involved.

    Let's instead look for ways to make this happen with the least pain and fallout, rather than self-interest. We first need to define what can be done, so admins please work with us:

    1) A true merger of classes to alleviate the backlash of things being deleted (melding like classes into one skillset)
    2) Allowing class skills to be available through specializations in the merged orgs (choosing a Rituals specialization etc)
    3) All new organizations and skillsets (probably not happening)
    4) No deletion and incentivize moving to another org (offering players the chance at fully valued transfer to new character)
    5) No further actions and population continues to be spread too thin
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    Since we're on a kick lately referencing other franchises, I could totally see Gaudi developing into the Tunnel Snakes. There are a couple orgs that it could make sense to nuke because of one reason or another. Like I said on Discord, Mag is about adaptation and changing to whatever environment, so the characters there could have a RP reason to migrate and adapt. Our primary goal here should be to minimize the disgust and outrage, because lets face it, there is no such thing as a change endorsed 100%.
  • HegemoneHegemone Member Posts: 55 Adept
    The only thing I'll pop in and say is if you axe some of the current player orgs I hope you keep said areas around in the game like @Jolanthe said. There's a lot of rich flavour and inspiration for people to draw off of out of every org, and even if you can't be a member of that city/commune anymore I would still like to be able to see the areas stick around and not just disappear.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Estarra said:
    Pysynne said:
    I know everyone (Disclaimer: Not Everyone) hates Glomdoring, but 4 orgs is better than 3 orgs. 4 allows for 2vs2 alliances, 3 is just one org is always dogpiled, like it was in the first few years of Lusternia.

    You also keep your forest/good/evil alignments, offer a chance for forest vs city, or what not.
    I don't know what you're remembering but Glomdoring was founded as a player org in the first few months after opening, and I don't believe there was ever any 'dogpile' situation before that, so I think assuming that would be the case is just theorizing (and anyway dogpiles could happen with 4 orgs as well).
    Anyway, we can consider 4 orgs but I'm wondering if the population would be healthier with 3. What do you guys think?

    The original game play before Glom came out was Seren and Celest allied against mag.

    Dropping to three orgs will most likely put the game back in that situation of 2v1.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Crek said:
    Very much not a fan of only some orgs being deleted while others get to benefit from claiming refugees who have now had their entire character history upended. This would just cause a larger imbalance in populations across a smaller spread as friends can and will congregate in one org.


    Yea.

    I don't think we should just delete an org and try to force the old people into older different orgs.

    Deleting all the old orgs and replacing the with new could work.

    Deleting existing orgs and expecting an entire org of players to just fit into an existing org is just not going to fly unless you do a major rework of that old orgs RP.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    Another Discord discussion that might bear some fruit. Bomb the entire Basin with a doomsday event, Kethuru is real. Real pissed that is, and offers to let any that serve him live once he has destroyed the world. Make it a simple 1v1 alliance game, you can have your Resistance and your Soulless. Simplifies things and brings a whole new theme to the game. This way those that wish to continue their character arc can be like, "I cared about my home, then Kethuru destroyed it, so now I band together to fight against him." or whatever, giving characters a reason for a 'fresh' start. Alternatively, gives other people motivation to seek something new, aka worshiping the Soulless rather than fight.
  • EnadonellaEnadonella Member Posts: 454 Expert
    I haven't read any of the comments, but I will. For now I just want to say that logistically this is a great idea. Dynamically this will kill Lusternia. You have groups of people that dislike other groups and forcing them all to play together is only going to increase the number of incidents that cause players upset and force them to move away from Lusternia. 

    I appreciate that currently this is a numbers discussion. But if you don't start putting the emotional wellbeing of your playerbase first you won't have one at all. I'd also like to mention that when we had the guild upheaval it caused many to grow distant and eventually cease to play at all. Removing orgs will only see a decline in the same fashion. 
    I stand by the Oneiroi's decision to pull the book from the public library. I will specifically withdraw the Oneiroi's reason why and replace it with my own words which I've stated to you several times: We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent


    I appreciate that currently this is a numbers discussion. But if you don't start putting the emotional wellbeing of your playerbase first you won't have one at all. I'd also like to mention that when we had the guild upheaval it caused many to grow distant and eventually cease to play at all. Removing orgs will only see a decline in the same fashion. 


    I am curious to see how much good reducing the guilds did. From the admin side of player numbers. I honestly didn't see a whole lot of good from it myself.

    In imperian they deleted one org as a tester and it felt like half the players in that org just quit playing and the other half moved to another org of the same alignment.
  • AlaksanteriAlaksanteri Member Posts: 533 Mythical
    edited April 27
    I would very much dislike to see Gaudiguch removed.

    Gaudiguch was the next best thing for my character while she basically RPs the explorer seeking Jojobo. If Gaudiguch ends up being deleted, please remove affinity entirely and make it possible so that her divine Order and the Seekers are her only affiliated orgs without any malus. If she ends up having to leave any of the two aforementioned orgs and no option seems interesting enough, it might be time for me to move on.
    Post edited by Alaksanteri on
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    We're in a situation right now that needs addressing though. Deleting orgs is just one method to solving it, and makes zero people happy. Everyone here understands that a vast majority of players feel really attached to their character and whatever they've chosen as RP. I say that because there are people like me who have no attachment and just want the game to be playable and enjoyable, willing to adapt and work into fitting into the change. My stance is the unpopular one and I don't press for it, but something does need to give. We the playerbase are losing players by changing nothing as we are, and we'll probably lose players going forward regardless which route we take. The question boils down to, what is more important, your individual RP or the game?

    If your individual RP is more important to you than the game, then even that is going to fade into obscurity here real quick as people get tired of the same stuff happening over and over. I will not sit here and say that you're wrong for caring about your individual RP more, because it's only natural for people to do this, you have an attachment and don't want to lose it. But if we're going to hemorrhage players anyway, might as well decide how we do it? I do like the idea of just changing to the Resistance v Soulless as it effectively hits everyone equally.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Kistan's points are fairly spot on in that regards.
  • EsriEsri Member Posts: 4 Inept
    I am not thrilled with the idea, I have not been around very long. But Glomdoring has a lot of life and growth inside the Commune. It would be a tragic loss to the the game as a whole, and you would loose most of your player base right along with it. Same with Celest, I understand that most of the other communes have been around for a long time but maybe merge the smaller populace ones with the bigger ones instead of taking apart families and ripping parts out. That is not going to fix anything is going to make it explode instead and ruin everything that still exists.

  • AlaksanteriAlaksanteri Member Posts: 533 Mythical
    edited April 24
    Misread.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    edited April 24
    Revised since post I'm responding to is edited. Let's fix this shiz together.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    There's been a lot of talk about what people don't like about it.

    But could we perhaps get the admin to talk about how they could see this happening?


    You've listed a few concepts such as just reducing it back to seren, celest and mag. I've been talking about it a little bit with some individuals and there's a lot of what ifs or what could be's going around.

    So lets say we delete all but two three or four orgs.

    What happens to the players in the deleted orgs? Are they just orphans who are left rogues who have to now go and apply to join totally new orgs. 

    Or are you going to merge the orgs. EG Seren and Glom merge to form a new forestal org. What happens then, do we both just decide that Night and Moon are cool and great and lets not worry about past competition or are we going to have an internal fight where the ex-gloms fight the ex-serens to see which set of beliefs come out on top and the winner gets to kick the losers idols and gods out of their org?

    Or are you just expecting large numbers of players to delete their roleplay history as well to try and slot into a new org with an opposing view?




  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    Estarra said:
    Thank you all for your opinions! Just to clear things up. It will not be possible to add new orgs from scratch (i.e., Jojobo, etc.). While merging/joining orgs would be possible RP-wise, we would still want to cut down the number of classes so choices would need to be made (i.e., Hallifax-Magnagora merge would either keep Hallifax or Magnagora classes, not both). Part of the appeal would also be reducing the number of classes necessary to maintain/balance. Also keep in mind, that I do hope Lusternia to grow over time (call me a crazy!) so I think I'd prefer the door to be left open to re-opening dormant orgs in the future which may be more problematic if they were merged.
    @Deichtine
  • UshaaraUshaara Schrödinger's Traitor Member Posts: 1,271 Transcendent
    I am both excited by the storytelling element that such a change would require, and also very worried about implementation.

    The lore and histories of the game are what drew me in originally and a Marilynth 2.0 extinction level event / Fall of Celestine Empire type storyline -could- be epic and reenergise Lusternian lore/mythos. But this really would have to be an event that is fitting for the end of several characters' story arcs, and there it all comes down to implementation. On this point, while I really rate Lusternia's ability for storytelling, I would be slightly worried about delivery based on the guild overhaul.

    But for examples, while I love Hallifax and would be really sorry to see it go, if there was possibility of banding together with other refugees in Climanti to develop it into a player org, that would be awesome to me. Or alternatively, if Hallifax refugees were taken in by mugwumpi researchers and could set up a Balach or Ghalphalshi swamp research commune, I'd be all over that.

    So I guess my point is, while recognising that there are practical resource limitations, new vistas and opportunities  are far more preferable to having to make a decision on whether I would want to join one of the existing orgs A, B, or C. If that ends up being the options that we end up face, I think it would end up being game over for me.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Makai said:
    Estarra said:
    Thank you all for your opinions! Just to clear things up. It will not be possible to add new orgs from scratch (i.e., Jojobo, etc.). While merging/joining orgs would be possible RP-wise, we would still want to cut down the number of classes so choices would need to be made (i.e., Hallifax-Magnagora merge would either keep Hallifax or Magnagora classes, not both). Part of the appeal would also be reducing the number of classes necessary to maintain/balance. Also keep in mind, that I do hope Lusternia to grow over time (call me a crazy!) so I think I'd prefer the door to be left open to re-opening dormant orgs in the future which may be more problematic if they were merged.
    @Deichtine

    Same questions apply.


    What happens to the players in the deleted orgs? Are they just orphans who are left rogues who have to now go and apply to join totally new orgs. 

    Or are you going to merge the orgs. EG Seren and Glom merge to form a new forestal org. What happens then, do we both just decide that Night and Moon are cool and great and lets not worry about past competition or are we going to have an internal fight where the ex-gloms fight the ex-serens to see which set of beliefs come out on top and the winner gets to kick the losers idols and gods out of their org?

    Or are you just expecting large numbers of players to delete their roleplay history as well to try and slot into a new org with an opposing view?

This discussion has been closed.