Org Reduction

Xiran · July 2023

During the Q&A following the announced roadmap, the question of reducing the number of organisations (cities, communes) as a potential solution to the population hurting and even out conflict (with current player-run alliances) arose. The following is a copy of that discussion. Further comments may be added in this thread.

Admin Miska —
Please remain civil and respectful of each other in responses on a potentially contentious subject. Thank you.
[Emphasis mine. - Xiran]

Xiran · July 2023

Uilani —
We have not looked at that at present as a viable option. Closing orgs is, too, a very time-consuming undertaking and requires massive edits all over the place. How does everyone feel about that?

Freja —
I rather have less orgs than a dead org.

Ayisdra —
I feel like deleting two orgs would just kill the game (more than it is). A lot of people probably only play one character and for their org and its themes. Maybe its not ideal to log in to an org and only see 2-3 (or 0 if you play off primetime), but having those players still is better.

Ixchilgal —
I think you'd run into an issue of the displaced people being exceedingly unhappy. Many to the point of just quitting completely.

Llani —
I think the idea of 'delete orgs' is often floated by people who think that their org definitely would not be on the chopping block.

Tikki —
Which is perfectly understandable when you're in one of the more populated orgs. But to the members of orgs that are smaller, it can feel like those suggesting it are putting a target on thier backs. Regardless of how big or small an org is, many people have built their character around the vibe of that org, and the idea of removing any org feels like a slap in the face to those players.

Could they possibly adjust their RP differently to fit in somewhere else? Perhaps. But this discussion was had not long ago, got heated, and as I recall a lot of people didn't like the idea of anyone suggesting that their RP should be adjusted. As Ixchilgal pointed out, it would leave a lot of people disenfranchised.

So personally, no I do not think reducing the amount of orgs is at all a good or viable idea for the health of the game.

Kalliope —
I've seen numbers swing wildly even since i started playing and with an uptick in activity there's no reason to think that they won't again if the conditions grow more favorable.

Huskii —
tbh, I stopped playing pretty much all muds when an org was removed from Aetolia.

Kalliope —
More space can also mean more room for growth and more niches for more individuals.

Freja —
My concern with Ascension [the topic from which this thread originally arose] is the population and trying to figure out how to make it an even playing field. I feel like most of the complaints I hear is an uneven playing field. I'm not trying to upset anyone by saying delete orgs, if that were the case and Mag was on the chopping block, so be it. Freja can learn and adapt. I just don't have any other thoughts/ideas on population for the game and ascension.

Llani —
The best way to fix the imbalance is to push for an alliance change, imo.

Arix —
That might be more viable now, most of the really toxic folk are gone and I know that was one of the reasons people wouldn't want to work with x or y org.

Freja —
The other issue with the alliance change is there are so few people in the orgs that if a few people don't like one person in a different org, they won't change it.

Malarious/Malayn —
As someone who has caused shifts/drama in alliances/orgs via trying to spice up Ascension, I can firmly say that part of the matter is alliance and part is attendance. When people choose not to attend and it makes their count seem lower, the actual effort feels subpar, and people may be discouraged from doing so again in the future. Who wants to fight a losing battle because the people they look to most decided not to attend?

Then again, I support implementations that result in more skirmish and less roaming death mobs (of players). Ascension itself is not the issue with Ascension, people are, I guess.

Uilani · July 2023

Please do post if you have any further thoughts.

Xiran · July 2023

We do need to consolidate our efforts and creativity to present a more vibrant world for old and new players, and reducing the number of orgs may be a way to do that.

While Serenwilde has a decent population, we do not have a Portal-touched teacher present at all hours of the weave. Teachers are perhaps the first interaction new players have with a real person, which has a great influence on them deciding if they like the flavour of a game as a whole and the culture of the organisation they have joined.

Second, in every org you can see people pulling double-duty when you look at both HELP <org> and CARTELS <of that org>. (Often names appear again in the appointed positions of HELP <org guilds>.) Technically the game system was designed to dissuade someone holding both an elected and a ministry position, but necessity has led to this. This also does not make visible whether some folk have turned to slumber and the org leader is filling in.

Various leadership positions (including ministries, guild, and Divine orders) have tools for player-run activities that continue to build an org's roleplay and culture. When people ask what they can do for the game, I would point to leading or joining in player-run activities and building off each other. This is important so that we are not reduced to a habit of running between conflict activities and admin-run events as all there is to the game.

The fondest memories I have of this game are of interactions with fellow players, and I hope another generation gets to enjoy the same thing. The quieter an org is, the fewer opportunities there are for that.

Luce · July 2023

The biggest counter-argument for this is that for every character willing and able to relocate, there's at least one who isn't. Closing any of the six orgs we have is going to result in a hit to the game's population that the game might not be able to weather.

Not lagging far behind is the sheer logistics of who gets cut, and what happens to the characters there. Is the org just temporarily disabled, or exploded? Do the cut orgs need to be paired? Should current alliances be taken into consideration with that?

Then there's the fact that you're asking players to either start over fully from scratch by retiring a character and moving their assets to a newbie, or asking the remaining orgs to essentially make a whole slew of exceptions for refugee characters to allow them to settle into the org and take over leadership positions in guilds/orgs that they have no roots in, and hoping that nobody who does so feels less gratitude than spite.

My point being, we're feeling the bite of the low population, but I don't know that closing orgs would solve more problems than it introduces.

Freja · July 2023

Back when Gaudiguch and Hallifax opened, Lusternia didn't have the population to begin with. They took a thin population and then stretched it over six organizations.

The admin had already asked older characters to give up their sense of identity when the guilds exploded and moved to only having three. Is asking people of a deleted org to move a lot to ask? Yes.

What other ways are there to keep newbies and older players around? I remember when I came back after a long hiatus, I almost bailed because at times the organization was so small and there was minimal interaction. If a few organizations got deleted, I will be losing a character or two. I will be sad because I'm attached to all my characters. I love the game more than my characters though, if the game gets shut down I will be devastated.

How can you ask an IRE transfer to stick around and tough it out or a fresh person wanting to try a MUD, with little to no population in the organization they choose? The bottom line is, you can't.

I'm more than willing to sacrifice my character to keep the game going. I'm more than willing to give up everything I have worked for if that meant keeping IRE transfers and newbies. Without more people, the game will not survive.

I don't know if this is possible, but if we could have an in-game referendum or open a QoL report allowing the admin to have the voice of the players. Not everyone uses Discord and not everyone uses the forums, but everyone can log in.

Kennian · July 2023

Luce said:

The biggest counter-argument for this is that for every character willing and able to relocate, there's at least one who isn't. Closing any of the six orgs we have is going to result in a hit to the game's population that the game might not be able to weather.

Not lagging far behind is the sheer logistics of who gets cut, and what happens to the characters there. Is the org just temporarily disabled, or exploded? Do the cut orgs need to be paired? Should current alliances be taken into consideration with that?

Then there's the fact that you're asking players to either start over fully from scratch by retiring a character and moving their assets to a newbie, or asking the remaining orgs to essentially make a whole slew of exceptions for refugee characters to allow them to settle into the org and take over leadership positions in guilds/orgs that they have no roots in, and hoping that nobody who does so feels less gratitude than spite.

My point being, we're feeling the bite of the low population, but I don't know that closing orgs would solve more problems than it introduces.

I agree that it would be detrimental to some players if orgs were deleted. I balance that with the very apparent need for bold steps forward in order to save the game overall. Yes, I would hate to see Mag or Celest deleted after I invested all of my time there. However, I’m also sure every Imperian player hated watching their game get shut down. If we are looking at bolstering our population, we have to view it from a newbie standpoint. And a newbie logging in to see 2-3 players online in their city, 1-2 of whom are probably AFK at this point, doesn’t do the game any justice.

I think we have to admit the fact that we don’t live in Lusternia’s glory days anymore, sadly. Having our standard 18-20 people who are consistently online spread over 6 orgs is… terrible. To the point of the idea always being suggested by people whose orgs would not get deleted, I echo Freja in saying that I would give up my most beloved city to keep the game open and alive. Because being forced to move or retire one person in a game I love is better than being forced to retire them all and move to a game I know nothing about.

Tikki · July 2023

Closing Orgs, whether temporarily or permanently, in my opinion is a genuinely terrible and hurtful idea, both to the game and the players. I know it's hard to stay impartial, but it's obvious at least ONE of the orgs that are on peoples' mind for targets for something like this. It's as transparent as air. It's not even been but a few days since the announcements were made. There is an influx of new players, and some returning players as well. Just because the times that X people are on doesn't mean that Y people don't exist, as we've established time and again. So to even entertain the idea that we should cut orgs, I cannot help but to feel it IS targeted. We all know fully well, no matter what Org did get cut, there would be a good deal of people who would either stop playing for an indeterminate amount of time, or just retire outright. And this 'sacrifices must be made' mentality feels telling to me, and whether it's intended or not, it hurts.

Rather than going back and forth on if any Orgs should be cut, especially when it's still fresh that things are being done to try and bolster the game's life, why not wait things out, see what's going to happen? Since things are starting an uptick. Or do what we can to bolster things? Talk about the game with friends, spread it places we hang out. Even nudge people to the smaller orgs to help out. It was even mentioned that Nexus would be going to Steam eventually. Which would bring in more new players! Org culling doesn't feel fun for anyone, it feels like everyone pointing a gun at everyone's head and nobody likes that. And yes I know, just because players are discussing the idea doesn't mean that it's a sure thing or something like that. But the fact that anyone feels like it's a good idea is harmful to the community, in my opinion. That being said I don't disparage the opinions that others hold, even if I disagree.

Freja · July 2023

I don't think anyone wants to intentionally kill off organizations. As Uilani said in the roadmap, this is a lot of work to delete them and move forward with closing an organization. I can't even imagine how the creators of these organizations would feel to see their hard work get destroyed. Deleting any organization is probably worse for the admin than us because of their efforts, blood, sweat, and tears building these places up. The reality is: this could happen, and if we don't want this to happen, the population needs to get built up to prevent it. All those suggestions to build up the population are great ideas. My fear is we don't have that long to see if those results will help keep the game alive. At the end of the day, it is up to the admin/producers what happens and what they decide, I will accept it.

I do see these new characters being made. I see the old characters logging in. That doesn't mean it will last. With the call of Ascension, more players will show up before the trials and then for the final event. Once it is over, they might stick around for a month or two, but then we'll fall back to the same amount of population or smaller. This is a vicious cycle I've seen take place over the years.

Luce · July 2023

Freja said:

The admin had already asked older characters to give up their sense of identity when the guilds exploded and moved to only having three.

Were you around then? Do you remember how many players we lost in the days and weeks after this was announced? How long it took to organize everything? And how many more we lost shortly after the actual shrinking? I was very nearly one of them just from ancillary stressors during the fall out, and it took an ascension about dragons to pull me back in.

Freja · July 2023

Luce said:

Freja said:

The admin had already asked older characters to give up their sense of identity when the guilds exploded and moved to only having three.
Were you around then? Do you remember how many players we lost in the days and weeks after this was announced? How long it took to organize everything? And how many more we lost shortly after the actual shrinking? I was very nearly one of them just from ancillary stressors during the fall out, and it took an ascension about dragons to pull me back in.

Yes, I was. At the time, not a lot of my organization left. Guilds are still dead and lifeless. I'm getting ready to lose a few for inactivity. Counting myself, I have three guild members that I see daily or every other day. How is that fair for anyone? People. Are. Spread. Too. Thin.

Uilani · August 2023

To be clear, this is not on the table right now. So please nobody stress about it. Our goal right now is to fight hard and try to get our numbers up. It's good to know how people would feel about this, should it ever be necessary. It's a pretty serious and painful topic for obvious reasons. So please do carry on discussing but without worrying about us turning round tomorrow and blowing up an org/s.

veara · August 2023

Honestly, to me, 80% of why I play is because of the org I'm in. I could not picture this character in any other org then Serenwilde and for my other character the same for their org. I think I'm not the only one who feels their characters are pretty much unearthable. For me it would likely be a dealbreaker. Not that I believe for a second that merging orgs would even work without major drama and player loss. You can't uproot someone from, say, Celest and throw them into Hallifax and hope that this works out.

For such a concept to have any feasibility and ensure some player retention, you would have to actively merge orgs into new orgs that reflect the themes of both source orgs. And I feel that would be a huge undertaking.

Saran · August 2023

Obviously have stopped playing for a long while but blame facebook for deciding to drop stuff in my feed. Not necessarily really going to be reflective of the current state but felt relevance is there.

Freja said:

I don't think anyone wants to intentionally kill off organizations. As Uilani said in the roadmap, this is a lot of work to delete them and move forward with closing an organization. I can't even imagine how the creators of these organizations would feel to see their hard work get destroyed. Deleting any organization is probably worse for the admin than us because of their efforts, blood, sweat, and tears building these places up. The reality is: this could happen, and if we don't want this to happen, the population needs to get built up to prevent it. All those suggestions to build up the population are great ideas. My fear is we don't have that long to see if those results will help keep the game alive. At the end of the day, it is up to the admin/producers what happens and what they decide, I will accept it.

I do see these new characters being made. I see the old characters logging in. That doesn't mean it will last. With the call of Ascension, more players will show up before the trials and then for the final event. Once it is over, they might stick around for a month or two, but then we'll fall back to the same amount of population or smaller. This is a vicious cycle I've seen take place over the years.

This is one of those convos that has happened over and over for years, the same with guilds. Every time the same things get said, the same ideas about how it can be fixed without this sort of bigger change but realistically, for the most part, people have been trying those things for years. Personally, I think the issue is more foundational. That this sort of thing is an ongoing issue seems like it's probably because there're game systems encouraging players to behave in certain ways or mandating certain choices, it doesn't make it intentional or deliberate more just a result of how things work.

I think reviewing the org and guild systems themselves might be worthwhile before merging orgs(cause I think mergers are potentially a better route between those and deletions). Yeah they're another, likely big, project but they're the place newbies enter, they're basically how we pick teams, it feels like it's always been said that Lusternia's roleplay environment is one of its best features and these systems are two of the primary ways people can get engaged with that. If a newbie jumps in and their org is dead it doesn't seem likely that they'd actually get to combat and, from personal experience, there can be a level of stress and burden placed upon players to make these systems work that can also lead to disengagement.

There's things like... consolidating ministries such as Security and Power as well as Culture and Librarian. Could it be better if Ministers were elected positions and replaced the council? That would mean each of them is responsible for running part of the org while at the same time forming the council (maybe CL and steward merge, maybe replace the CLs access to everything with like... a way for the council to give them temporary access to a ministry). With aides, if you have the population you can break up the responsibility amongst aides, but it also wouldn't have the same names multiple times if you needed people doing multiple jobs. As part of that, you could also consider its really necessary for all those things to be player controlled or if there're ways certain things could be just automated or the like.

Kinda also made me question if Guilds work best as this Silo'd design they currently have? It could actually be pretty cool if everyone had a rank for each guild in their org and you could somehow just pursue ranks in any or all of them as you wanted without being forced to choose. It flips things in a way, Saran can still be a Listener and anyone in Serenwilde can see his rank there, but he could also pursue Wodewose and Sowers stuff as well. It could lessen the strong identity that you have with a guild but people could still choose to just rank up in a single guild, but it also allows people to pursue multiple. If you tie things like demichoices, emotes, guildhall access/stuff, etc to rank you can also create a reward system for people that do rank up in the guilds which makes those things stuff that you earn by learning about each guild. Like you might require GR2 to actually enter a guildhall, GR3 might give you emotes, or something more flexible where like specific demichoices can be tied to specific ranks/paths/etc.
You can also allow people to choose a primary, so that people can only have official positions/votes in one guild at a time but also allow for people to just move between them without losing anything so that if one guild is quieter people can easily shuffle around to help if they like. Similarly, if you do the ministry thing above as well then GL wouldn't be a fight for a council position it'd just be for people who want to focus on building the guild.

Mostly just examples, but the idea is to like... question the systems themselves and see if maybe rethinking them could serve the game better, cause they can work in higher population situations but it doesn't seem like they do with lower populations.

Xiran · August 2023

To respond to earlier comments, I had presumed it would be individuals deciding their new orgs, rather than something wholesale, and this could be roleplayed as usual. Whether they take up leadership positions would come about in organic roleplay also. I don't think combining org cultures/aesthetics through an admin-led effort would have a reasonable payoff (to keep or attract players) for the amount of work it'd involve.
-----
I think I'd like to see investable powers in the ministries similar to guild privs, so that aides may be able to fill in in case of absence. Ex. Librarians and Culture Ministers invest ability to submit for prestige. That is, allow orgs to decide how centralised or decentralised power/privs are.

Osae · October 2023

I've only just come back from a hiatus so long there were only 4 orgs, so my opinion probably carries little weight.

Instead of closing organisations, why not merge them, or instead intrinsically link them in some way? For example, Glom and Seren, Celeste and Halifax, Managora and Gaud, or whatever combinations admin see fit.

You mechanically reduce total orgs, compress the player base, but maintain the themes and open up potentially new ones (like two colours slowly mixing, you still have the original themes as they haven't fully "merged", and in the middle you'll have new opportunities for RP and maybe even mechanical changes).

Example of the above, say Seren and Glom merge. You'd still maintain the RP available for twisted night and happy moon, but you could also have characters shift as the sun does, or as the seasons do, or have people who reach a perfect equilibrium and just love nature in all its forms and hate society in general. Celeste and Halifax become big order peeps, Gaud and Magna become more Chaos and free spirits.

Or if anyone else here is into MtG, from Ravnica you'd get Golgari cross Selesnya, Azorious and Rakdos.

As I said, I've been away a long time so this opinion may be worthless, but as someone coming back the really low org pops have made me consider whether it's even worth sinking time and love back into the game.

Everiine · October 2023

One thing is certain in the Basin of Life: Glom and Seren will never get along. The last time they were forced together caused a huge fallout.

Xiran · October 2023

I was largely not present when this particular alliance occurred, so I can't comment it specifically.

I think it is okay for alliances to be shifting things directed by RP. There are reasons for alliances to form and alliances to break between each org. I do not think it a failing for change to happen. But this is a thread about org reduction, and I think we might be presuming a bit about how such might occur or how well it might go in comparing to alliances.

Everiine · October 2023

There've been occasions where Glom and Seren have temporarily put their differences aside to combat a very specific threat to the existence of Nature itself. But the two orgs are so diametically opposed to each other (and, lorewise and mechanically, always have been) that long-term alliances aren't a thing for them.

Saran · October 2023

Everiine said:

There've been occasions where Glom and Seren have temporarily put their differences aside to combat a very specific threat to the existence of Nature itself. But the two orgs are so diametically opposed to each other (and, lorewise and mechanically, always have been) that long-term alliances aren't a thing for them.

Context is pretty relevant though.
If it were decided to reduce the number of orgs, making merges work is a theoretical alternative to one no longer existing and it's not necessarily a given which orgs might stay. Similarly, if merging were to be considered and a forest merge is out that leaves merging with a city which also comes with its own issues. The forests merging in the scenario allows for the preservation of "civilisation" vs nature and you'd expect that it'd come with lore and mechanical backing to support it.

Osae said:

Example of the above, say Seren and Glom merge. You'd still maintain the RP available for twisted night and happy moon, but you could also have characters shift as the sun does, or as the seasons do, or have people who reach a perfect equilibrium and just love nature in all its forms and hate society in general. Celeste and Halifax become big order peeps, Gaud and Magna become more Chaos and free spirits.

Or if anyone else here is into MtG, from Ravnica you'd get Golgari cross Selesnya, Azorious and Rakdos.

As I said, I've been away a long time so this opinion may be worthless, but as someone coming back the really low org pops have made me consider whether it's even worth sinking time and love back into the game.

Personally, it seems reasonable to expect that Celest and Mag would lead to whichever org they merged into being aligned with the immanidivnius and excoroperditio respectively, which in turn lends itself to a Dynara vs Magnora dynamic. In turn, you have Yudhe/the Nameless Son as a potential third with like... they aren't really one or the other they're both in a level of harmony and seems like there's some interesting things you could do with that which can also easily make them incompatible with either of the other two.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Org Reduction

Comments