Best Of

Re: Thanks for the RP (Version 1.0 Alpha)

I had a lovely time speaking with @Maylea 's Mahin! It was such a fun little interaction and put a smile on my face!

Elexia

2

Re: QUOTES 8: THE QUOTING

A gem I'd forgotten I'd saved from our last meeting:

(Freedom Council): Mboagn (from the Aetherways) says, "We do so much work when we're all awake together."

(Freedom Council): Mboagn (from the Aetherways) says, "Let's not do this again."

Eritheyl

8

Re: QUOTES 8: THE QUOTING

Ianir the Anomaly has bestowed Their divine truefavour upon the Grand Dominion of Gaudiguch. It will last for 5 months.

He is an ordinary human scandalous demigod and stands near six feet in height. His unblemished olive skin and lithe build suggests a sheltered upbringing. His hazel eyes gleam with curiosity, beneath the shoulder-length mane of wavy sun-bleached hair. A light stubble covers the lower part of his face, bordering a mischevious smirk. A chaos butterfly is resting on his shoulder. A scarlet hieroglyph rests in the centre of his forehead, flickering with occasional tongues of lightning to show the truefavour of Mysrai, the Shofet of Abyssal Scales. He walks with the truefavour of Ianir the Anomaly.

The concept that Ianir would favour Gaudiguch alone is laughable. That obviously never happened. Memory dust!

@Ianir

Sulwh

1

Re: Question about Hekoskeri

Riluna said:

I always called it "entourage". Ent classes have a necessary entourage.

The 'entity' usage is probably inherited from Achaea, where one class that had lots of things following it around (like a wiccan) was the Occultist, and they had "chaos entities".

Akyaevin

2

Re: Small(er) scale pvp

I would 100% run a bookkeeping business based on betting on wargames teams.

It'll be Lusternian Superbowl!

Mboagn

2

Re: Small(er) scale pvp

Regarding GK participation from cross orgs, maybe it can be addressed RP-wise. As it is there is no in game impetus to cooperate to clear them, aside from personal gains in exploration. If the admin is willing to cook up a more detailed story as to why everyone should and could team up, then we might see more success in cross-org cooperation.

Azula

5

Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals

We maybe have 100ish players. With about 70-60 active (walking around, getting daily DC) over the course of a RL month. Out of that maybe 10-20 active crafters. People who design and craft on a regular basis because it's part of their play style.

We are going about this the wrong way. You cannot build a scarcity driven economy because we just don't have enough people for it to work. We are a tiny hamlet, where pretty much everyone knowns everyone. More or less.

What we must do is build an economy on player engagement. Use orgpoints as a commodity multiplier. IF you are particularly active in combat ...maybe your org gets #X more ore/metal type comms. Culture= food and daily necessities.

The '#' is based on the number of active crafters who craft. this is for the admin to look at.

Then I suggest we either update existing commodities quests and fix the grain, fruit, vegetables, metal and stone quests.

2)To prevent bottle necks. We need TWO ways of gathering commodities. One is the usual comms quest. (bring X to villager get coms) The other is an outside merchanics i.e caravans, insider trading, (discussed in the previous posts)

Isser

1

Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals

yes to selling designs instead of items. That is Imperian's model, and they also have the NPC caravans, too.

Mboagn

2

Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals

I'm curious why your two viable paths exclude:

"Increase commodity availability and address tradeskill gating" - why don't you see that as viable? Sure, you could add things in where people can craft things and sell them off to gold to npcs as an alternative to hunting or whatever, but I'm not sure why you're only presenting two options that both require a lot of work when it feels like the simplest solution is just put it back to the way it worked for years, while potentially adding a few other outlets / reasons for trades along the way.

Xenthos

1

Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals

Ayisdra said:

A few things:

On research upkeep - Remove the lose a level. I would even go far as to move the research devices into a public section of the org, one that everyone can access. This would allow anyone to put anomalies/ comms/gold into it. Research privs (upgrade, select, end) can remain with guilds.

Making things decay and require upkeep I think is just annoying and not a fun. I think trying to make trades as any sort of money maker is a lost cause in today's game. Too many well established characters can undercut everyone and still make profit (even if that profit is only a few thousand). Losing something because you take a break is also not fun to come back to a bunch of things you liked decayed (and might not be able to get back)

tbh, the only time I've seen the guild link come up as relevant with research is when people are yelling at the one person in a dead guild for messing up maintenance on it and there's no actual benefit for the guild so I'd just make it an org thing and replace the thing that's "something to make guilds relevant".

Re: decay on necessities...
There are players who find grinding essence annoying and not fun, based on your reasoning here we must look at providing cheap artifacts that remove the need for players to engage with that aspect of the game as well. Its annoying that not everyone can get veneration and have their own cult so should we also treat it with the same metric as trades?
The last sentence also seems to ignore that there have been suggestions that account for that concern, such as by making runed things go inactive rather than decay, and realistically the concern about people coming back from an extended break is also easily addressed by incorporating restoration items into the welcomeback package.

Also to note, all of these arguments about why decay is bad also impact newbies and other people who have less credit investment for any reason. People who its more likely would have gold issues recovering from their inventory decaying, non-decay just makes the situation worse for them by making it less and less worthwhile to actually stock goods they need to get started again. None of the "solutions" we've gone through over the years to keep non-decay on essentials but fix that issue have actually resolved that.

Also the fact that established characters are able to undercut people, the fact that it's even minorly profitable to do so, are issues with the game people are trying to get addressed. Arguably, non-decay actually contributes to this issue by reducing the value of gold for people that are more able to generate it and trade goods.

Personally, my expectation is that trades being allowed to continue in this state is kinda a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The types of players who'd be happy to sit there and stock shops and make sure the game has everything readily available are discouraged because it's not a valuable pursuit, which then means we get issues with goods because those types of players aren't engaging and fulfilling those needs. And mostly things have just gotten worse.

Saran

1