Idea to help increase interaction

KaindorKaindor Member Posts: 8 Inept
I've been playing lusternia off and on for about 12 years. I don't really get far but I do enjoy the environment of the game before life pulls me away, so I am sad to see it in the current state it is. Through reading the forums I've seen ideas to remove orgs entirely to get people to start interacting but I wanted to give my idea to see if it has any value. 

Alliances between the cities and communes usually split the basin in half already, so why not create a system to hard code an alliance in the game. These grand alliances can then compete for resources on behalf of the cities and communes in the grand alliance. At the time of this post it's split between Gaudiguch, Glomdoring, and Celest; and Magnagora, Hallifax, and Serenwilde. A grand alliance can then compete for the same resources a city would usually and then split between the cities depending on effort on that orgs part it would then get all orgs involved in some way for village revolts wilde nodes etc. The orgs in turn get to each keep their cultural differences, a new channel can be added so newbies from one org can be assisted by teachers from another in the absence of one from the newbies own org. The grand alliances will also not be static but be limited to only 3 orgs so it is possible for a city to vote to leave an alliance and attempt to go on their own as is usual now, or try to join the other. the cap is to prevent one side from gaining too much power over the other. The general direction of the alliance itself would then be voted on by the orgs that are in it with the figurehead of the alliance being the one with the highest cultural score. This gives weaker orgs a chance to help lead even if it is not the strongest. 

The idea is to let each organization keep what is special about them without losing anything, in return, it gives cultural scores a little more impact to help improve rp, and it allows everyone to work together a little stronger as they push there grand alliance up. It also allows for more politics to be involved when it comes to moving from one alliance to another.

It's obviously not a perfect idea and I don't know how feasible this idea is but I figured I'd give my two cents and hope it might spark somebodies imagination enough to come up with a better solution.

Thanks for reading through my ranting! 
«1

Comments

  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Thats not a bad idea.

    We sort of do that anyway but in a more informal way. Using an alliance clan to help each other and newbies out etc.

    Having a built in automatic alliance channel and an alliance newbie channel sounds pretty good.
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    I strongly agree with suggestions such as these for a stronger and more systematic alliance system.

    The more players across multiple orgs work together, the more a player population split across the fairly large # of 6 orgs (and 18 guilds!) will spend time in the same rooms. This adds a lot to gameplay.

    Players will be able to choose the org lore and skillsets that they truly want, without feeling lonely if that org is going through a less populous phase.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    edited March 5
    Kaindor said:
    The grand alliances will also not be static but be limited to only 3 orgs so it is possible for a city to vote to leave an alliance and attempt to go on their own as is usual now, or try to join the other. the cap is to prevent one side from gaining too much power over the other.
    Generally support the idea, but I'm not sure about this part. I really wouldn't want to see the 6 orgs just split into 2 super-orgs whose constituent orgs never change. Lusty would become a binary, and I go to this game as opposed to all others to escape that.

    If there's a 3 org limit, the 6 orgs would just divide into 3v3 and it's unclear if they would have a motive to get out of that and switch alliances. Splitting off would lead to a 1v2v3 situation instead of a 2v4 situation until and unless the other side kicks out one of their orgs, a mechanic that punishes whoever decides to leave first.

    Better to have a 4 or 5 org limit, but to have some kind of periodic cost (eg, paying power or gold, or experiencing more frequent village revolts) that increases as the size of the alliance increases. This could help lone orgs and alliances of 2 orgs stay competitive.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • SynlSynl Member Posts: 173 Adept
    I like this idea. I would only change the org limit from 3 to 4. I still dream (and work in-game... well, when I play...) to realize the beauty of forests vs. cities.
  • KaindorKaindor Member Posts: 8 Inept
    I can see maybe limit it to 4 so we never have a 5v1 and internal tension will end up causing someone to leave. I think the attrition cost will make sense, same as increased chance of revolts for opposing ideologies being in the same group.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    I'd actually go the other way and drop them down to 2 each so you get 2v2v2. Two alliances could informally group up to give 4v2 but there's also an incentive there for one alliance in the 4 to break off if they're strong enough
    image
    image
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    Well, having the limit at 4 doesn't prevent 2v2v2 from happening. It just means that 2v2v2 isn't the only option. With a max 2 limit, there's a similar problem of dynamism as with 3v3, in the sense that the first org that makes space for alliances to change would be punished. Max 4 allows for conflict to remain very flexible and energetic.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    Or we can go back to the olden days where there were 3 orgs and they only 'worked' together through an open market to get enchantments and brews. If we nuke orgs or slim it down, 3 is definitely more optimal.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    Devora said:
    Well, having the limit at 4 doesn't prevent 2v2v2 from happening. It just means that 2v2v2 isn't the only option. With a max 2 limit, there's a similar problem of dynamism as with 3v3, in the sense that the first org that makes space for alliances to change would be punished. Max 4 allows for conflict to remain very flexible and energetic.
    Given what we've seen already in this game 2v2v2 wouldn't happen if it was 3 max let alone 4, there is always a greater benefit to be had in getting larger numbers so people will aim for them.

    Also what does a max of 4 actually look like? In the ideal even split of population that's two thirds of the game against the other third with the system mechanically encouraging it. That's before you even consider stuff like the four forcing an org pairing which is entirely unfun for the two that are stuck together.

    2v2v2, in theory, offers more dynamic combat because you don't have two sides facing off but instead have to be aware of your two enemy groups and capitalise on the openings you can find or create.
    image
    image
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    Saran said:
    there is always a greater benefit to be had in getting larger numbers so people will aim for them.
    Agreed! Which is why I said this earlier:
    Devora said:
    Better to have a 4 or 5 org limit, but to have some kind of periodic cost (eg, paying power or gold, or experiencing more frequent village revolts) that increases as the size of the alliance increases. This could help lone orgs and alliances of 2 orgs stay competitive.
    I'd prefer the added strategy & dynamism that a 4 org max would entail, rather than a lower org max. It's also a good opportunity to help balance the economy with gold sinks and more motivation for conflict, rather than a stable model with a multiple of 6, such as 3v3 or 2v2v2.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    Saran said:
    what does a max of 4 actually look like? In the ideal even split of population that's two thirds of the game against the other third with the system mechanically encouraging it.
    The escalating costs I proposed earlier would make 4v2 unappealing in the long run. The point is more that it opens up space for a transition period, where 3v3 (for example, H/Gl/S vs M/C/Ga) can change to 4v2 (eg, H/Gl vs M/C/Ga/S) and then shift back to 3v3 (eg, H/Gl/M vs C/Ga/S). Currently, the alliance system tends to work like this - periods of 2v2v2 or 3v3 interrupted by unstable periods of 4v2 or 3v2v1 that then rearrange themselves. With a max 3 or max 2 limit, these transition periods become much less feasible, which discourages shifting alliances.
    Saran said:
    stuff like the four forcing an org pairing which is entirely unfun for the two that are stuck together.
    How is that different from 2v2v2? When 4 orgs pair off together, the last 2 are stuck with each other.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    I don't think we've ever had a honest 2v2v2 situation in Lusternia's history. Maybe we did for a very brief period and I missed it, but it has always been a 'them or us' mentality for alliances.
  • KaindorKaindor Member Posts: 8 Inept
    Saran said:
    2v2v2, in theory, offers more dynamic combat because you don't have two sides facing off but instead have to be aware of your two enemy groups and capitalise on the openings you can find or create.
    The idea isnt designed for more dynamic combat it's designed to maintain what we have while making the slower orgs more noob friendly. I've been starting and restarting characters for 12 years and have never seen it this dead. My character was already completely self sufficient and I had been playing for about a week before I got to talk to anyone in my own city. That is what drives people away. If I had never played this game or a game like it before I would have left after twenty minutes.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    Devora said:
    Saran said:
    what does a max of 4 actually look like? In the ideal even split of population that's two thirds of the game against the other third with the system mechanically encouraging it.
    The escalating costs I proposed earlier would make 4v2 unappealing in the long run. The point is more that it opens up space for a transition period, where 3v3 (for example, H/Gl/S vs M/C/Ga) can change to 4v2 (eg, H/Gl vs M/C/Ga/S) and then shift back to 3v3 (eg, H/Gl/M vs C/Ga/S). Currently, the alliance system tends to work like this - periods of 2v2v2 or 3v3 interrupted by unstable periods of 4v2 or 3v2v1 that then rearrange themselves. With a max 3 or max 2 limit, these transition periods become much less feasible, which discourages shifting alliances.
    Saran said:
    stuff like the four forcing an org pairing which is entirely unfun for the two that are stuck together.
    How is that different from 2v2v2? When 4 orgs pair off together, the last 2 are stuck with each other.
    We've already seen how static 3v3 can be. I would expect 2v2v2 would actually encourage shifting because there are less orgs involved in the decision process.

    In 2v2v2, if Seren is unhappy with say Celest and Halli us unhappy with Mag, then Seren can just go to Halli and group up leaving Mag and Celest to sort themselves out with Gaudi and Glom.

    There's no need to go and have talks with a third member of the alliance and negotiate around their preferences, in the above example Halli could also look for allies in Celest or Glom.

    As far as how it's different, in 2v2v2 the last two could also chose to not ally and give us 2v2v1v1. It's also, in theory, easier to break up a 2 than a 4.

    Kaindor said:
    Saran said:
    2v2v2, in theory, offers more dynamic combat because you don't have two sides facing off but instead have to be aware of your two enemy groups and capitalise on the openings you can find or create.
    The idea isnt designed for more dynamic combat it's designed to maintain what we have while making the slower orgs more noob friendly. I've been starting and restarting characters for 12 years and have never seen it this dead. My character was already completely self sufficient and I had been playing for about a week before I got to talk to anyone in my own city. That is what drives people away. If I had never played this game or a game like it before I would have left after twenty minutes.
    Your idea encourages a certain dynamic in org v org conflict and provides a potential incentive for the strongest orgs to mechanically ally so they can dominate the various objectives. (Because, at the end of the day, if the strongest can capture enough objectives to offset the sharing why should they work with weaker orgs?)

    This would, in theory, hurt retention on the weaker side of the 3v3 because a decent amount of people would either transfer to the stronger side or get fed up with losing and quit. Which seems liable to hurt retention on the stronger side as well should PVP become stale and easy.

    Limiting it down to two means, in theory, even if the two strongest orgs grouped up, the other four are still in the other two alliances and fighting them everywhere.
    image
    image
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    A three way fight sounds great to be honest and I think it would be good if we had the player base for it.

    I don't really think we do though. Similar IRE games that had a three way split tended to cycle between 2 main sides with the third side being pretty anaemic.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    I think it kind of keeps boiling down to our player base and how we struggle to have six orgs populated.

    It fluxes and some orgs go up and down but we do almost always seem to have at least 2 orgs being pretty dead population wise.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    Deichtine said:
    I think it kind of keeps boiling down to our player base and how we struggle to have six orgs populated.

    It fluxes and some orgs go up and down but we do almost always seem to have at least 2 orgs being pretty dead population wise.
    Yeah, it's also reminding me of how the guild bloat issue went over the years.

    The alliance thing could have been a neat system to have years ago but now seems like it could be more like a band-aid (like covenants were) before we do an org overhaul which may or may not be too late.

    Nipping down to 3 if we're averaging 2 orgs dead would, in theory, consolidate people. There'd be a loss sure but just depends if it can be managed.
    image
    image
  • KaindorKaindor Member Posts: 8 Inept
    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.
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    Cutting orgs is bad in the short term, great in the long term. A lot has been changed - WAY more newbie friendly, f2p, timequakes … but if those changes don't increase the population by enough, then yes, I'd support cutting orgs. on the one hand I think it'd be better to start from scratch than to delete some orgs and keep others. on the other hand, I think if Glom, my fave city/commune ever, got scrubbed, I doubt I would keep playing, at least for a long time until I get over it.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • CrekCrek Member Posts: 263 Fabled
    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 Divine voice of Ianir the Anomaly echoes in your head, "You are a ray of sunshine in a sea of 
    depression. I just wanted you to know that."
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    @Orael Do you know, or would you even be allowed to say, if admin are considering such a thing as a full org reset? Or some way of diminishing the current number of 6 orgs?
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    I think a lot of us would support starting from scratch than just snipping a few. Whatever chaotic event (this year's Ascension buildup) could rip the cities and communes from existence, level them, whatever and just leave people to building their own. Hallifax and Gaudiguch on release were just shell themes, that the initial players dumped work into to get it rolling, and the admins did what they could to help those aspirations come about. I honestly believe even if we just had two orgs that had access to all archetypes it would be an improvement. Could easily just make it West v East or North v South depending where you cut it, and it would still have the ruins of two cities and a commune.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 314 Creator
    Devora said:
    @Orael Do you know, or would you even be allowed to say, if admin are considering such a thing as a full org reset? Or some way of diminishing the current number of 6 orgs?
    It's not something that's really been talked about in any concrete fashion.
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    Is it something that -can- be talked about? Also, what would be easier - Raising each org's synergy to equal level, or starting from scratch with a less amount of orgs?
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    Kaindor 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.
    So yeah you don't prioritise them, you do this

    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. 
    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.
    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.
    image
    image
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    @Saran I made that suggestion in Steingrim's as well, but it wasn't received well.
  • DevoraDevora Member Posts: 194 Capable
    I love the orgs as they are now and would find a restart a huge loss in many ways, but if this is something many people in the player base really believe in, I would get behind it. For me, immersion and rp are the most important; can't do that with a thin pop.
    Arix said:
    Tzaraziko died for your spins
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    Lycidas said:
    @Saran I made that suggestion in Steingrim's as well, but it wasn't received well.
    Yeah, neither was the guild overhaul suggestions/begging for years so rather than something being done about it we just saw them slowly die off until eventually something was done but that was kinda too late and the issue spilled over to org pop concerns.

    Devora said:
    I love the orgs as they are now and would find a restart a huge loss in many ways, but if this is something many people in the player base really believe in, I would get behind it. For me, immersion and rp are the most important; can't do that with a thin pop.
    One of the things that I'd want from a merge is that you have strong echoes of the original two orgs present, for the story to focus on them coming together into something stronger than they were individually. I also wouldn't nuke the physical spaces that are already present but just make them the property of the relevant new orgs.

    Also support is tricky with stuff like this because the engaged players will likely be generally happy with the status quo even if that's slowly killing the game because otherwise they would have left.
    Again, it's like the guild overhaul, you had a minority pointing out the issue, then they left which made new people feel the lessened population who then complained, then left, and so on until the issue was eventually resolved, but not until after we'd lost generations of players.
    image
    image
  • LycidasLycidas Member Posts: 555 Master
    If we merge mages into one, it should be Earth/Air and Fire/Water >.> Firewater as a joke and they're both 'cleansing' types.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,183 Transcendent
    Lycidas said:
    If we merge mages into one, it should be Earth/Air and Fire/Water >.> Firewater as a joke and they're both 'cleansing' types.
    Yeah, you could also have Fire and Air available to either side with Earth and Water being unique giving different interpretations. (Fire as cleansing vs Fire as destructive)

    The main reason I put them together this way is just cause I keep coming back to a Dynara, Magnora, and Nature trio. In that I guess I just feel fire fits a bit more neatly on the Magnora style with earth cause you go with the transformative, destructive, dangerous, and raw power links you can work with in mythological fire.
    image
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.