Yeah I know, I'm just stating that complaints really should be of a lower priority when it comes to doing an event (within reason). I mean, is this why almost every event so far involves gathering/influencing something? Because it's a safe (if boring) option?
Also I was thinking that I wish Lusternia had a CITY RELATIONS (similar to Achaea's) command that could simply declare entire orgs enemies/allies. It'll do nothing else except for flip a flag, though it will cost a significant amount of X to flip (hey hey goldsink).
Then you'd be able to tie conflict systems (like say, domoths) into that.
With that said, I can agree that a social barrier like events/gods is far more likely to fail or build resentment as opposed to literally deleting the enemy list or changing domoths, but it's also way less coding and work. Plus all the RPers would probably enjoy it more.
To tie in with Shuyin ' s idea, I'd really like to be able to ALLY HALLIFAX/ENEMY MAGNAGORA to set people from those orgs as my personal allies or enemies, even if just the people in the immediate area.
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.
Probably a bit extreme, but: Everyone counts as enemies, unless the org uses CITY RELATIONS to ally with another place, and being allies drains nexus power every month.
I would, personally, like to see a constant drain on commodities and city gold stores while they're "at war" with anyone else. RP-wise it could be funding outposts of guards in villages or what have you. Goldsink and commsink, and it causes people to have to actually do the quests of the villages they own to make them cost efficient. If you can't afford to keep a village, it declares itself neutral until the next time it would free itself naturally.
Goldsink and commsink, and it causes people to have to actually do the quests of the villages they own to make them cost efficient.
Comm sinking just makes villages undesirable, imo. There's already a lot of ways to produce commodities without villages, and this would just make them feel like more of a "necessity" rather than obtaining commodities how you are supposed to in a "natural" sense. Scaling gold costs for an ever larger empire sounds fine, though.
I would, personally, like to see a constant drain on commodities and city gold stores while they're "at war" with anyone else. RP-wise it could be funding outposts of guards in villages or what have you. Goldsink and commsink, and it causes people to have to actually do the quests of the villages they own to make them cost efficient. If you can't afford to keep a village, it declares itself neutral until the next time it would free itself naturally.
I've said it before but I really want to see a "War" system. Something that makes it so that there's like an end and encourages people to shift and change alliances. In my mind you'd always want to be going after someone of roughly equivalent strength, so if Celest and Hallifax became the superpowers of the basin, they'd get more out of declaring war on each other than allying and going after the weaker orgs.
If you're gonna delete the personal enemy list, only do that. None of this ally crap. It also screws with lusting.
Hit all except people of your own org or don't do it all.
Calm down, big guy. I'm pretty sure lust would still be a thing, and my idea wouldn't touch being lusted to people.
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.
A note for clarity's sake, as I'm pretty late to this thread:
I pointedly do not direct the flow of opinions in Serenwilde. I don't threaten or coerce, I don't withhold anything to get my way, and I don't maneuver politics behind-the-scenes. I actually make it a point to tell whomever's in charge at the time to do what they want, which they've already stated here as the truth. That's how we roll in the Havens. It's too messy to try to force players to do anything, and frankly, and to echo Zvoltz's point, we're too busy to really have an OOC opinion. We get our kicks out of watching players run with our ideas, not by investing in the outcomes. This is the only time I will defend myself against player accusations, because I know I am a very straight shooter in the arena of player interactions.
I do make firm stances as Lisaera (re: taint, Fain, opposing orgs, and so on) and relay those sentiments to the Moonhart Circle. That's my job as their patron. Gods are spiritual guides, and so when players do things that may go against that god's opinion, then that god needs to say as much. If the commune or city decides that, politically, they are no longer following the same trajectory as the god, then they can figure out who to replace Them.
Again, let me be clear, for the record: I am very black-and-white when it comes to what I ask of Serenwilde. I don't play a traitor god role, and I'm not personally stellar at manipulating politics in the way that Estarra suggested was a totally viable means to an end (re: using order members to spread influence). I do have super faithful players in my order who I love interacting with, and they go along with my plots because they're having fun with what I come up with. That was the kind of interaction I craved with my gods when I was a player, so I strive to deliver it for players now.
A word of caution to players who demand a meeting with a god and anticipate some kind of outcome -- tread lightly. You cannot guarantee that you'll get what you want. More often than not, whatever you planned will backfire anyway, especially if you try to bully an opposing organization's deity.
A followup to @Lisaera's remarks, especially regarding "More often than not, whatever you planned will backfire anyway, especially if you try to bully an opposing organization's deity."
Admin, and especially patron-level admin, or very visible ones, are working on anywhere from 3-4 projects for Lusternia (if not more) on top of our day jobs.We're generally going to save our energy for interacting for enjoyable roleplaying scenarios or for the sake of ongoing storylines and events. I've especially found as I continue in the role of Mysrai that I have to pick and choose who I have time or inclination to talk to. Generally speaking, if it's someone who's not in my order, or a citizen of Gaudiguch asking for something, I'm not going to reach out or respond unless I'm seeing something particularly interesting.
A good example of this: @Tekora's recently approach to me requesting unenemying was super respectful and interesting, especially with regards to his willingness to play along with my character's demands. It was definitely the approach of catching flies with honey.
Tread lightly when you engage with staff, absolutely, as we have a lot of latitude in how we can respond. We're not going to play ball with interactions that we find draining or unrewarding, or against our individual roles as Gods.
I feel like it's really weird to frame patron status in an org as that org traveling along the same trajectory of that god, because of how much OOC necessity there is in having an active/proactive patron.
It's not an OOC role. Requests are framed through in character interactions. Gods are ICly correlated to the organization by the request of the ruling council and city leader of the organization. The process for electing or selecting a patron involves approaching the god ICly and requesting their patronage. It is always the right of the god in question to say no, or revoke that patronage.
Contrast the envoy process, which is an out of character decision for an OOC process.
I feel like it's really weird to frame patron status in an org as that org traveling along the same trajectory of that god, because of how much OOC necessity there is in having an active/proactive patron.
Just look at the log I posted a while back on Maligorn and Jadice. When maligorn was GM of the Symphonium and asked Jadice to be patron, she said no because of how he worded it. More so, because of the interaction they had on the request, Jadice basically told them she wouldn't patron as long as Maligorn was GM.
I totally get that, and fully understand the process of getting a patron... but when a god goes inactive they are replaced by an active god, even though none of the relevant teachings change. Even if it were possible to do so, appointing... Auseklis as patron is out of the question, because his order is inactive and has been for years. Lisaera became Serenwilde patron after Hoaracle went inactive and we needed a new (active) patron.
I don't really understand how that's all that significantly different from replacing other guild roles when they go inactive. And, to be quite honest, I'm not sure it's a terrible thing for guilds to change Patrons periodically. It's not like a Divine's teachings have a 1:1 correspondence with a guild's teachings. To continue with discussing the Symphonium, I miss @Isune a lot, and her teachings about Beauty meshed really really well with being a bard guild in the city where Art is a big deal. That said, I'm also enjoying thinking about @Jadice's teachings and how they can inform the guild's views on the Loralaria. I've been wanting to get into the mathematics of music for a bit, so this may help give me the push to do it, and maybe we can learn more about Crys through the sibling connection there.
Would we have switched to Jadice if Isune hadn't gone inactive? Possibly not, and I would have been perfectly happy to continue working with Isune. But I don't really see an ic disconnect from desiring active thematic guidance and choosing to pursue the option that provides it when Isune is focusing on Her art and not paying attention to us mortals, even if the real ooc reason is that we know the player has stepped down or is taking a break. It's not like we're saying Isune's teachings are wrong by replacing Her. We're just choosing to approach matters from a slightly different perspective.
It's not any different, it's just like replacing other guild positions when they go inactive: There are powers each position has, and you need someone with those powers around. My comment was intended to point out that it's weird to portray an org switching patrons as being due to some IC motivation, when in the majority of cases it is to switch away from an inactive god and has little to say about their philosophy or anything.
It should be an IC decision by the org or guild leadership as to whether or not they'd like a change in patron. It is then up to said leaders to approach the patron God they'd like. The mechanical details aren't really our concern - they're your concern. If you need those powers around, then you need to figure out how you, as a guild leader, are going to select and request a new patron when your old patron goes inactive. That involves negotiating with your patron on their terms, as you're asking us for our promise to guide and do work for you.
The decision as to whether we're going to patron and accept the work we'll be doing for your org or guild is entirely up to us. Generally, we say yes. That doesn't mean we'll always say yes, as with the above example with @Maligorn and @Jadice.
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
It should be noted that Glomdoring kept Viravain as patron for a long time after she went dormant some years back, and did not suffer from it. Active admin were still able to handle requests, mostly because org level requests are not super common in my experience and the admin are usually willing to work with you if you're keeping a god as patron for RP reasons as Glom did with Vira.
It should also be pointed out that the Symphonium elected at first to keep Isune for IC reasons. Sadly though, we could not get a new envoy without a guild patron. Thus, I think guild patron needs to be more of an OOC decision ('more of' implies it can be a mix of IC and OOC).
For Mister Zvoltz, Pejat has been terminated by the Replicant Dynodeon.
Functionally, it's both. If push comes to shove, you can always message the organizational patron or Estarra regarding the situation.
Either way, in this sort of circumstance, it should be approached ICly as possible within reason - including with respect to your prospective patron, who is likely already aware of the situation re: your inactive patron. It's probably not wise to tell the Divine you're courting that you're only asking them because you need things done, even if it does happen to be the case. It's a manners 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.
Not only that, but they tend to pass certain people back and forth freely: Raeri and Ryboi come to mind, and a longer while back, Veyrzhul. For a long while, they've been wrapped up with each other.
Just like to add that I haven't swapped as much as people think... I've been in Seren for 1 1/2 RL years and was in Celest for 3 going on 4 years prior to that
Comments
Ixion tells you, "// I don't think anyone else had a clue, amazing form."
I've said it before but I really want to see a "War" system. Something that makes it so that there's like an end and encourages people to shift and change alliances. In my mind you'd always want to be going after someone of roughly equivalent strength, so if Celest and Hallifax became the superpowers of the basin, they'd get more out of declaring war on each other than allying and going after the weaker orgs.