Reducing the Number of Player Orgs

1356721

Comments

  • SynlSynl Member Posts: 208 Adept
    First take: it would suck to lose Glomdoring, but as a player I recognize concentrating player populations into three orgs is better for the game long-term, and would come to terms with it. That said, I'm also not a long term player in the same sense as some others (Xenthos) are, so take my opinion with that in mind. I think one thing that would help with redrafting my character into one of the three 'new' orgs would be if I could do a character reset of sorts - even just rename it, at the bare bones - to help with an identity of 'Synl2 the Celestian' as opposed to 'Synl the Glom'.

    I'll be mulling this over. I -am- very thankful to see the admins open to such drastic change. It's just nice.
  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,210 Transcendent
    Maybe Halli can be skipped in this deletion thing, since we already lost them once during that whole false gods thing.
    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.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    The bolded part answers your questions, but just in case:

    1) Yes, they are then being told to join another org. Also being given a free transfer to a new character if they desire, fully funded.
    2) If orgs merge, as stated, you pick one set of classes to use, not a mixture.
    3) Expecting players to drop their history, unless they take the free transfer.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    We keep referencing that we're only keeping the original three, but it's not even solidified. Other ideas exist and I think they have merit to them, just requires we go through this thread and look at them and discuss those, as I don't think anybody so far as been onboard with only the orig trig (stealing from Star Wars now) surviving.
  • EnadonellaEnadonella Member Posts: 454 Expert
    Makai said:
    The bolded part answers your questions, but just in case:

    1) Yes, they are then being told to join another org. Also being given a free transfer to a new character if they desire, fully funded.
    2) If orgs merge, as stated, you pick one set of classes to use, not a mixture.
    3) Expecting players to drop their history, unless they take the free transfer.
    @Estarra could you clarify this to be true? Because I think there is a lack of comprehension here which is leading to misinformation. 
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Makai said:
    The bolded part answers your questions, but just in case:

    1) Yes, they are then being told to join another org. Also being given a free transfer to a new character if they desire, fully funded.
    2) If orgs merge, as stated, you pick one set of classes to use, not a mixture.
    3) Expecting players to drop their history, unless they take the free transfer.
    The bolded parts don't answer the questions. Your answers are fairly clear but I don't see Estarra say that anywhere here and I was asking them. If these are the answers that Estarra has given somewhere else then cheers for the update.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    What misinformation and lack of comprehension? I quoted the post, bolded it too, to give those answers. This thread has also openly discussed being able to transfer all your goodies to a new character if you desire, as well as further confirmed on the Discord. You as a player are not being left out to dry.
  • KeahiKeahi Member Posts: 15 Inept
    edited April 2019
    I understand that all new org areas is a no go (though if you aren't interested in doing something right, why do you want to do it at all, and expect it would actually work?), but I think at the very least, the rebranding idea needs to be considered. So the City of Light and Reason is built in Old New Celest, and the skills are rebranded as something not quite Celest, not quite Halli. Serenwilde remains as the First Forest, but Moon/Night/Stag/Crow all GTFO and a new commune is founded, patroned by Monkey and Frost Spite but the skills are just reskins.

    And the orgs start from the ground up, with new leadership, new enemy statuses, and no one having to be to be let in or do a bunch of BS tasks to be allowed to.
  • ShaddusShaddus , the Leper Messiah Outside your window.Member Posts: 8,210 Transcendent
    edited April 2019
    From the mouth of babes, so to speak. Ishra has a pretty valid point. 

     Ishra said:
    but what is being done to increase the player base? Wouldn't it be a better investment of resources to work on that, rather than making sweeping changes that will inevitably lead to results that are counter to the intention of the change (losing players) and which would ideally wind up being reversed anyway once the player base (hopefully) expands?
    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.
  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    edited April 2019
    Someone made a very good point in a clan converstation.

    There are two main issues thats getting talked about.

    The numbers of players for one issue and the issue of reducing classes to reduce work load for balancing.


    It's worth making the suggestion that we could keep the orgs as they are but still reduce the number of classes. Eg Make all monks essentially identical, drop their terts etc, that's 6 classes to balance dropped down to 1. Etc do the same for guadians etc.

    If having a large number of classes is an issue its something that can be solved without deleting orgs. This doesn't solve any of the issues of numbers but we felt it was an important point to make if the class numbers was a major problem.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    We already have something like that in place, its called warrior. The only thing that separates the warriors is a tertiary skillchoice and even then they can be identical. I'd rather not see more archetypes get shoved into that level of mundane, as it doesn't solve any problems. The issues we're being faced with are some places being more populated than others and an unwillingness as a playerbase to rectify this (Because there's no incentive right now), and the perceived combat imbalances. Perceived is used, because people are going to argue what's OP or not no matter what, not getting into it here.

    I'll go through this thread and compile the different ideas that have been suggested and we can all hopefully go from there as a starting point, instead of rehashing the same things already said by another.
  • EnadonellaEnadonella Member Posts: 454 Expert
    I have some 'what abouts' 

     * Divine
     * Families
     * OrgBixes
     * Org flavoured designed beasts/artifacts (Are people going to be forced to pay to change these?)
     * Racial/Class benefits
     * Cartels
     * Libraries
     * The majority of an org just moving to an allied org and tipping the balance. 
     
    Things like that...because you say it is -just- discussion.  But none of us believe that. You have seen how quickly people retire based on loss. Look at what happened with the 'glitch' about retire value. Severing what little attachment some people have left to this community is going to isolate organisations further. 
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    Estarra said:
    One of the things I said I'd consider later in the year would be to reduce the number of cities and communes if the player population doesn't really support six orgs. However, rather than wait, I think we should at least open up discussion at this time since our population seems to have settled. Keep in mind that this is something I really am loathe to do and have been dragging my feet even thinking about it, but the reality is that we need to look at the health of the game and what we need to do to succeed moving forward. Another reason would be it would narrow development resources as balancing three orgs is easier with our limited coding resources than it is to continue to balance six.
    Thus, the current thought is to go back to the 'original three' organizations: Serenwilde, Celest and Magnagora, and allowing Glomdoring, Hallifax and Gaudiguch to go dormant. However, we know Glomdoring is a large organization so it would be tough on players currently there, but it may help bolster the remaining organizations. We have also considered other combinations of closings but if we want to grow in the future, I think new players look for familiar themes (nature/good/light) rather than what may end up having with other sets. Anyway, nothing is written in stone and I'm not even sure we'll go forward with org reduction, but I wanted to hear your opinions.
    Pysynne said:
    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.
    Nelras said:
    In a three-org situation, Serenwilde remains 'neutral' to the conflict of Light vs Taint, and opposed to both cities. In a 4-org situation, they would need to be opposed by the remaining org.

    This could be Nature vs the Wyrd, mirroring the Light/Taint conflict.
    It could also be the Natural Order of the Serenwilde, against the unnatural Fire and Chaos of Gaudiguch.
    Or it could be Nature vs the Science and civilisation of Hallifax.

    While I may be biased towards the latter, and it would also allow all of the city-haters to have something to hate rather than hating another forest, I am posting these as examples to spark a discussion. 
    Makai said:
    I honestly think the easiest solution would be to make pairs that agree to it, and merge them and give them a new name. We can have a world event (akin to Cosmic Hope) that just wrecks the world and forces these people to merge in order to fight the threat.

    Seren/Glom -> Jojobo
    Celest/Gaudi -> City of Enlightenment
    Mag/Halli -> City of Sciences and Technology
    Makai said:
    Well, even if a new area (Jojobo) isn't created, things can still be merged. Heck you could make Serenwilde and Glomdoring linked by an archway or nature portal to quickly move between those prime locations, leave the archways on Faethorn to act as proxy gates to those prime locations as well. We don't need a new map, and if we did, we have mortal builders and could bring on more if necessary. Instead let's merge orgs that have similar archetype structures and just make them specializations like they already are. Using my mergers from before:

    Warrior: Knighthood (BM, PB, BC, Cav, AL), Athletics, Rituals (Necromancy/Aeonics)/Tracking. Depending on which ritual they take, they could be considered that specialization.
    Guardian: Cosmic (Nihilism/Harmonics), Rituals (Necromancy/Aeonics) forced based on primary, Tarot/Hexes/Healing/Astrology.

    And the list continues, but that might be easier to achieve with changing flags of skills and what nexus they require, than outright making new things or just deleting orgs.
    Aramel said:
    I'd be (very begrudgingly) on board for an org trimming if the new orgs were actually new orgs. They don't have to be actual recodes - just rename them and delete half the classes.

    "The forestal council"
    "The beacon of flame"
    "The engine of science"

    I am opposed to deleting some orgs and not others because it is the ultimate middle finger to people who have put in hard work to those orgs - in many cases building them up to be fairly successful even in the current game climate - to be passed over in favor of other orgs. "Sorry, we know you're the third most active org but we care more about x org's theme, bye". It's very alienating. A total wipe feels less targeted, more equitable, and allows for new avenues of RP.

    Alternately, if we're going to delete, keep only two orgs: one pair of opposing cities. This allows for even more integration (since with alliances, there's basically only two "sides" to the game already).
    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.
    Rhyker said:
    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.
    Makai said:
    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
    Makai said:
    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
    Makai said:
     The issues we're being faced with are some places being more populated than others and an unwillingness as a playerbase to rectify this (Because there's no incentive right now), and the perceived combat imbalances. 
    Why would players from one side move to the other when all they receive from the other side is abuse and constant harassment, as well as accusation of all kinds against them or their friends? Nobody wants to play with people who are constantly bitter and raging. Especially when those words are against people they know and care for. Something for the otherside to think about. 
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    I have some 'what abouts' 

     * Divine
     * Families
     * OrgBixes
     * Org flavoured designed beasts/artifacts (Are people going to be forced to pay to change these?)
     * Racial/Class benefits
     * Cartels
     * Libraries
     * The majority of an org just moving to an allied org and tipping the balance. 
     
    Things like that...because you say it is -just- discussion.  But none of us believe that. You have seen how quickly people retire based on loss. Look at what happened with the 'glitch' about retire value. Severing what little attachment some people have left to this community is going to isolate organisations further. 
    Some discussions have come up in other avenues as well, so I'll give ya what has been said thus far to further the conversation:

    1) Divine would shift around to the new orgs, or just bow out (Helps filter out the Divine that are just inactive)
    2) Families would probably just settle in a new org and become a GreatHouse there
    3) Orgbix is kind of a loss, I'm sure a compensation could be made if properly asked for. (Bringing awareness to it like this helps)
    4) Things can be reskinned, I'm sure they'll be willing
    5) Most of those are based on environments and skillsets, assuming a skillset is being removed entirely that is required for a race benefit, it can be changed
    6) Org-based cartels can be made public or the cartel-specific be merged into the new cartel
    7) Same as the cartel designs
    8) Population imbalance is going to be a thing unless players decide to rectify it themselves. But as it has been numerously stated in this thread, friend groups will just migrate together and this will be an issue going further irregardless unless people step up and fix it.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 429 Creator
    I think it's a mistake to say that the reason we're making this change is just to reduce the workload for balancing. While that is certainly a pro, it's not the only pro.

    Reducing orgs by half would mean we would double the divine patrons per org. This would mean more divine attention per org, as well as things like patronrequests being done faster and easier because more people are sharing the load. If we're doing special events, that's only 3 orgs we need to plan for rather than 6 etc. 

    On top of that, we probably average ~30 players at our more popular times, so that'd be more people per org, meaning more people to greet newbies, help out with quests, join in fights etc.

    I'm sure there are other pros that I'm missing, and I'm aware there are a whole host of cons that go along with it as well. I just don't want people to be focused on one aspect as the sole reason for the change.
  • EsriEsri Member Posts: 4 Inept
    Here I have a possible solution, edit the classes as you see fit but leave the communes alone and do this instead, take the Alliances that were created in game and make them countries or unions (political). You join the country you would like then join a sub community such as the six communes 3 for each, so no one has to loose anything other then a class change. Then you have 2 (countries) with 6 states / sections to choose from, that suits what you want.
  • InnonInnon Member Posts: 152 Capable
    Another option for class reduction is mirror every class and just add in new flavor lines. Glom/Seren has same skills different flavor lines, Mag/Celest has same skills different flavor lines, and Gaudi/Halli has the same skills different flavor lines. Thus, the balance conversation would end, and the issue at hand would be player population?

  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,291 Mythical
    Orael said:
    I think it's a mistake to say that the reason we're making this change is just to reduce the workload for balancing. While that is certainly a pro, it's not the only pro.

    Reducing orgs by half would mean we would double the divine patrons per org. This would mean more divine attention per org, as well as things like patronrequests being done faster and easier because more people are sharing the load. If we're doing special events, that's only 3 orgs we need to plan for rather than 6 etc. 

    On top of that, we probably average ~30 players at our more popular times, so that'd be more people per org, meaning more people to greet newbies, help out with quests, join in fights etc.

    I'm sure there are other pros that I'm missing, and I'm aware there are a whole host of cons that go along with it as well. I just don't want people to be focused on one aspect as the sole reason for the change.
    You make it sound like that this is a 100% for sure thing that is happening, while the initial post by Estarra made it sound like "maybe, not sure yet"
  • JolantheJolanthe Member Posts: 551 Mythical
    Why would players from one side move to the other when all they receive from the other side is abuse and constant harassment, as well as accusation of all kinds against them or their friends? Nobody wants to play with people who are constantly bitter and raging. Especially when those words are against people they know and care for. Something for the otherside to think about. 

    Even with a character reset/artie transfer, you'd still have certain players taking good hard looks at their artied newbies, working to figure out who they used to be, and instantly judging them based on who they were prior (even if they happen to get it wrong).

    If we can't self-police against that sort of behaviour, or refuse to, this sort of thing will simply never work.

  • DeichtineDeichtine Member Posts: 2,016 Transcendent
    Kistan said:


    I also think arbitrarily picking three original orgs is wrong. If you want the game to survice, you play to your strengths and you would pick the three most populous organisations (however you judge that). it is easier to amalgamate a smaller group into a larger one.If all of Glom moved to Seren, how would you stop it becoming New Glom?

    Just because you like the histroy, it is clar in some cases that players have voted with their feet and do not. Build on your strengths not your weaknesses



    From the way the admin are talking it does sound like your fairly set on three orgs. I'd personally prefer 4 just for the sake of avoiding the inevitable 2v1 alliance situation.

    Kistan's point on just arbitrarily picking the original three is the most important point I've seen made if we're focusing on aiming for three orgs.
  • LorinaLorina Member Posts: 159 Expert
    I don't really see how this would all work out. So many things (of mine, at least) are tied in New Celest and their is no in game system of like... Giving me my orgbix in new org B... Or like how I will have to pay out my fish butt to have my entire character essentially rebranded to her new org. This is a huge loss investment.

    Though with retirement, which I have tried on alts, I found I hated the new character I made. I have retired created newbies that just sit, and I would hate for me to disappear from this game, which would happen if I had to retire.

    If we do this, and some of us are forced out, will be compensated so we can acclimate to this huge change? Regardless through transferring your character to a new org or retiring, you are losing yeeeeears of yourself. It makes you not want to play if its all lost.

  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    The original three was dismissed immediately, even within the original post it was mentioned in. No one is pushing for only the original three to survive. I even went through the trouble of QUOTING the ideas presented in their iterations to avoid just this.
  • IlthiliorIlthilior Member Posts: 87 Adept
    edited April 2019
    This sounds like a repeat of removing old guilds, and I can't see a way of doing it that would be 'fair' to anyone involved. Not to mention no one's going to particularly like if their org gets removed, I don't think.
  • EnadonellaEnadonella Member Posts: 454 Expert
    edited April 2019
    Makai said:
    I have some 'what abouts' 

     * Divine
     * Families
     * OrgBixes
     * Org flavoured designed beasts/artifacts (Are people going to be forced to pay to change these?)
     * Racial/Class benefits
     * Cartels
     * Libraries
     * The majority of an org just moving to an allied org and tipping the balance. 
     
    Things like that...because you say it is -just- discussion.  But none of us believe that. You have seen how quickly people retire based on loss. Look at what happened with the 'glitch' about retire value. Severing what little attachment some people have left to this community is going to isolate organisations further. 
    Some discussions have come up in other avenues as well, so I'll give ya what has been said thus far to further the conversation:

    1) Divine would shift around to the new orgs, or just bow out (Helps filter out the Divine that are just inactive)
    2) Families would probably just settle in a new org and become a GreatHouse there
    3) Orgbix is kind of a loss, I'm sure a compensation could be made if properly asked for. (Bringing awareness to it like this helps)
    4) Things can be reskinned, I'm sure they'll be willing
    5) Most of those are based on environments and skillsets, assuming a skillset is being removed entirely that is required for a race benefit, it can be changed
    6) Org-based cartels can be made public or the cartel-specific be merged into the new cartel
    7) Same as the cartel designs
    8) Population imbalance is going to be a thing unless players decide to rectify it themselves. But as it has been numerously stated in this thread, friend groups will just migrate together and this will be an issue going further irregardless unless people step up and fix it.
    I appreciate you are saying all of this. Which essentially means nothing. I could sit here and tell everyone what I think might happen. It would be nice to hear it from @Estarra. Because until then, all we are left with is hearsay. 
  • AfolliaAfollia Member Posts: 81 Capable
    On a side note, what would be a view on Divines tied to an Org?

    Would they swap and transform with the organisations?
    Would they end up being killed off story wise?

    If they remain in their current state, would affinity still be a big deal and cost essence to be maintained?

    Would Divine Orders be simply whiped out?
    Would  cartels of player creations in Org & Divine Order be deleted?
    Are libraries and all the work players have created over time be destroyed ?

    Many players, not only me, genuinly love our Divines that we've spent time with over time and would love to continue with them. Both RP wise & with the Divine Order built within.

    Maybe I'm assuming a bit much, but it would be very unfortunate to lose the RP input & work builtup with that aspect too.

    PS: Terribly sorry if someone asked this before.

This discussion has been closed.