I could absolutly see that happening witouth actually ''Re-creating'' Celest & Magnagora. Kind of like when the groups merge. The in game code & structure stays the same, but the groups togheter evolve into something more?
Basically just add
Celest - City of freedom & light Managora - City of Conquest & order Faethorn - The heart of Nature
The end.
Faethorn would take a bit more work, but you could just change the names & rewrite the story a bit on celest & magnagora to make it work. This feels like it would be a lovely ''Rebirth''.
It's less make a brand new city. Then Re-brand a city to a new theme that represents the people that joined in. Whipe Enemy lists clean and press Reboot.
To put this out there this reads as pretty dismissive of Hallifax and Gaudiguch, there's a simple reality that you could change the epithet of the org but if you're still calling Celest, it's still Celest not a merger of the two orgs.
Not at all:
Celest & Magnagora would be the cities & Structures as far as the coding goes.
...but that's where it really stops.
You could archive the newsboards, if feasible, as a historical reference for the two merged cities while adding a new one for the Org to write in. Evolve the Grand library & Cartels to merge player creations & works as well as allow new ones to be added. Whipe enemy lists
...and done?
Not sure how this is in any way dismissive of players or RP. It preserves everything of value.
I mean, maybe guilds would need a rework? That's the only obstacle I can really tell. But i'm sure we could just preserve current ones and Re-Brand them along with the city change. AkA evolve the Rp to fit with the new direction the city is going.
There are other posts that confirmed the coming of the package, and is why I started what should be included back on page 4 of this. There's plenty of stuff here in this thread.
I could absolutly see that happening witouth actually ''Re-creating'' Celest & Magnagora. Kind of like when the groups merge. The in game code & structure stays the same, but the groups togheter evolve into something more?
Basically just add
Celest - City of freedom & light Managora - City of Conquest & order Faethorn - The heart of Nature
The end.
Faethorn would take a bit more work, but you could just change the names & rewrite the story a bit on celest & magnagora to make it work. This feels like it would be a lovely ''Rebirth''.
It's less make a brand new city. Then Re-brand a city to a new theme that represents the people that joined in. Whipe Enemy lists clean and press Reboot.
To put this out there this reads as pretty dismissive of Hallifax and Gaudiguch, there's a simple reality that you could change the epithet of the org but if you're still calling Celest, it's still Celest not a merger of the two orgs.
Not at all:
Celest & Magnagora would be the cities & Structures as far as the coding goes.
...but that's where it really stops.
You could archive the newsboards, if feasible, as a historical reference for the two merged cities while adding a new one for the Org to write in. Evolve the Grand library & Cartels to merge player creations & works as well as allow new ones to be added. Whipe enemy lists
...and done?
Not sure how this is in any way dismissive of players or RP. It preserves everything of value.
I mean, maybe guilds would need a rework? That's the only obstacle I can really tell. But i'm sure we could just preserve current ones and Re-Brand them along with the city change. AkA evolve the Rp to fit with the new direction the city is going.
Nope, this ignores human nature.
As an example, Celest is a name that carried a massive amount of historic baggage. You have over a decade of Celest meaning a certain thing to players of the game, loads of implemented historic information about what Celest has done in the past. (including the pretty messed up stuff they've done to Gaudiguch) It's a name rooted in their connection and relationship with Celestia.
So when an old player comes back and sees Celest, they're going to assume it's current Celest. Even just simple things, like if you did give them "ownership" of the Vortex and Celestia it leads to the obvious question of why they would name themselves for one of their cosmic creches and not the other.
It is a whole messy situation that could be entirely avoided by just coming up with new names.
Also, the Celest/Gaudi paring is super weird to me just off the whole thing where, from what I've been told, Celest ordered that whole nation to be drugged when they threatened Celests dominance over the empire and basin. (I imagine someone who's well versed on Gaudi lore could confirm)
Can argue around the social differences between Mag's social stratification vs Gaudi's freedom focus but there's far more the the orgs than that, afaik.
1
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
I've only made it through half of the comments so far.
While I think it may be necessary to concentrate players into fewer groups, it's a short-term solution. 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.
Removing half of the orgs in the game will make the remaining orgs bigger, yes. But it won't stop people leaving, and won't fix any of the actual problems causing the decline in the first place. I'd rather see all of the effort going into fixing what's wrong with the game than waste all that time on a short term solution.
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
@Saran I'm not claiming everything is perfect, but we do have to reach both sides of the alliance divide at a compromise if something like this happens. The biggest issue is identity & mechanics, I 100% agree. But identity shouldn't be something that seperates us. It should brings us togheter and this would be a lovely time to fix the whole mess of mechanics along the way by slashing out classes and reducing the number to something more manageable.....or creating brand news ones that have lovely synergy themes.
Magnagora & Celest, aside from the fact they were suggested as being kept, I love the branding behind them. They are both lovely beacons of Good vs Evil firmly attached to people's minds when you think of Lusternia. Same could be said of Faethorn/Maeve/ Great spirits of Nature vs just ackleberry, serenwilde or glomdoring.
Lore & RP shouldn't be something we look back and decides locks us in, instead it should help us create brand new things and reach out to others.
Personally? I'd rather imagine we can birth something new and move forward....then hope we end up with in-game civil wars in orgs + mass shrubbing or people quitting for good.
I rather like my friends and I'd like to keep them.
I'm not opposed to meeting new ones either
But I won't have someone step on who I am, that's not right.
I've only made it through half of the comments so far.
While I think it may be necessary to concentrate players into fewer groups, it's a short-term solution. 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.
Removing half of the orgs in the game will make the remaining orgs bigger, yes. But it won't stop people leaving, and won't fix any of the actual problems causing the decline in the first place. I'd rather see all of the effort going into fixing what's wrong with the game than waste all that time on a short term solution.
I'd disagree tbh, players have been feeling population strain even before Halli and Gaudi entered the game, that precedes a large number of the things that you're suggesting are the cause. That's not to say they're not also issues because they are, but there's a need for a game like Lusternia to have a decent population to sustain aspects that are selling points and help retention.
Magnagora & Celest, aside from the fact they were suggested as being kept, I love the branding behind them. They are both lovely beacons of Good vs Evil firmly attached to people's minds when you think of Lusternia. Same could be said of Faethorn/Maeve/ Great spirits of Nature vs just ackleberry, serenwilde or glomdoring.
Lore & RP shouldn't be something we look back and decides locks us in, instead it should help us create brand new things and reach out to others.
Personally? I'd rather imagine we can birth something new and move forward....then hope we end up with in-game civil wars in orgs + mass shrubbing or people quitting for good.
I rather like my friends and I'd like to keep them.
I'm not opposed to meeting new ones either
But I won't have someone step on who I am, that's not right.
The bolded is literally why leaving them as the names of the resultant orgs will just mean they're New New Celest and New Magnagora rather than a merger of the two orgs they were formed from. Because players will still focus on the Celest part of Celest and the Hallifax or Gaudiguch aspects would be likely sidelined. We know this happens because it's a consistent issue for Serenwilde where people look at it and roleplay around surface impressions.
But I've decided that you're not actually honestly engaging with the conversation given you've also suggested that civil wars, mass shrubings, and people leaving a game that is dying are a good thing.
0
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
I'd disagree tbh, players have been feeling population strain even before Halli and Gaudi entered the game, that precedes a large number of the things that you're suggesting are the cause. That's not to say they're not also issues because they are, but there's a need for a game like Lusternia to have a decent population to sustain aspects that are selling points and help retention.
My fear is that, at this point, there aren't many selling points left that haven't been broken.
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
I imagine she meant than, not then. Ie. She'd rather have the former rather than the latter. But this is me reading in good faith, not actually speaking for anyone else of course.
I'd disagree tbh, players have been feeling population strain even before Halli and Gaudi entered the game, that precedes a large number of the things that you're suggesting are the cause. That's not to say they're not also issues because they are, but there's a need for a game like Lusternia to have a decent population to sustain aspects that are selling points and help retention.
My fear is that, at this point, there aren't many selling points left that haven't been broken.
True, but it's a selling point you can fix and then one of the big issues right now (class disparity) is something that could potentially move towards a fix much more quickly because each org would have more people invested in fixing up the skills. Even easier if you also followed through with the suggestion of reducing the number of available archetype variations. (One was to lock half of the classes in the game, another was to lock down each existing class to one variation that you focus on fixing).
Doing this before melders means that long standing issue could potentially be done faster if the work load is reduced as a result. Which would, in theory, settle some of the big complains circulating around at this point.
My hot take on this is to play more on the city vs commune conflict. Remake the Holy Celestine Empire and the Alliance of Forest Enclaves. Pro: you only get 2 real factions. No more issues of alliances and what not. I mean, the traditional 3v3 or 2v2 setup of Lusternian conflict is really just...1v1. So you might as well double down on that.
Then, under those two super orgs, you can make each individual 'city' be like a guild. So there's Celest, Magnagora, Hallifax, and Gaudiguch all intact under the HCE umbrella. And under the AFE, you can have Serenwilde, Glomdoring...plus, you can finally "open" Ackleberry and maybe even Jojobo-in-Exile. They won't be "major" orgs (those would be the HCE and the AFE), so it might be easier to release and manage them.
The "new guilds" we have now would be shuttered, since the cities and communes would be the "guilds" of this system.
It's a thing I toyed with, one of the big concerns for why I didn't mention it is that you're ultimately putting four orgs into one while the other org only draws from two.
Would require more dev time to get the carrot of Ackle and Jojobo which would probably draw people in and that's kinda counter to the suggestion from Estarra that this could be an opportunity to reduce the number of classes in the game.
Well, I took a dram of whiskey when I saw the title of this thread. Not because it's a bad idea, but because this is a community that can start flamewars over forum buttons. I must say that I'm very pleasantly surprised that it's still going 9 pages later.
It's a thing I toyed with, one of the big concerns for why I didn't mention it is that you're ultimately putting four orgs into one while the other org only draws from two.
I don't know the exact, active, population numbers, but could this solution and a little inevitable migration potentially solve the current disparity?
Magnagora & Celest, aside from the fact they were suggested as being kept, I love the branding behind them. They are both lovely beacons of Good vs Evil firmly attached to people's minds when you think of Lusternia. Same could be said of Faethorn/Maeve/ Great spirits of Nature vs just ackleberry, serenwilde or glomdoring.
Lore & RP shouldn't be something we look back and decides locks us in, instead it should help us create brand new things and reach out to others.
Personally? I'd rather imagine we can birth something new and move forward....then hope we end up with in-game civil wars in orgs + mass shrubbing or people quitting for good.
I rather like my friends and I'd like to keep them.
I'm not opposed to meeting new ones either
But I won't have someone step on who I am, that's not right.
The bolded is literally why leaving them as the names of the resultant orgs will just mean they're New New Celest and New Magnagora rather than a merger of the two orgs they were formed from. Because players will still focus on the Celest part of Celest and the Hallifax or Gaudiguch aspects would be likely sidelined. We know this happens because it's a consistent issue for Serenwilde where people look at it and roleplay around surface impressions.
But I've decided that you're not actually honestly engaging with the conversation given you've also suggested that civil wars, mass shrubings, and people leaving a game that is dying are a good thing.
Just popping in since a clarification was requested:
What I want: Bringing something new and moving forward What I - do not - want: Civil wars, mass shrubbing & people quitting.
True, but it's a selling point you can fix and then one of the big issues right now (class disparity) is something that could potentially move towards a fix much more quickly because each org would have more people invested in fixing up the skills. Even easier if you also followed through with the suggestion of reducing the number of available archetype variations. (One was to lock half of the classes in the game, another was to lock down each existing class to one variation that you focus on fixing).
Doing this before melders means that long standing issue could potentially be done faster if the work load is reduced as a result. Which would, in theory, settle some of the big complains circulating around at this point.
Kill me, Saran and I agree on something! I'm teasing, obviously. I'm down with two super factions, regardless how it shapes out. It can be Resistance v Soulless, Anaklusmos' idea, or whatever else we come up with. My preference for what is to come:
1) Two large opposing factions, nothing else. 2) Three factions enforced into a 1v1v1 3) Two diametrically opposed orgs, with a true neutral 'mercenary' org 4) Two pairs of two diametrically opposed orgs, of the 'enemy of my enemy' rather than real alliance
Do I expect these to hold up? Well first and second are achievable, third would be a lot harder to pull off, would need some heavy-handedness on the admin side, and even more so for the fourth.
My hot take on this is to play more on the city vs commune conflict. Remake the Holy Celestine Empire and the Alliance of Forest Enclaves. Pro: you only get 2 real factions. No more issues of alliances and what not. I mean, the traditional 3v3 or 2v2 setup of Lusternian conflict is really just...1v1. So you might as well double down on that.
Then, under those two super orgs, you can make each individual 'city' be like a guild. So there's Celest, Magnagora, Hallifax, and Gaudiguch all intact under the HCE umbrella. And under the AFE, you can have Serenwilde, Glomdoring...plus, you can finally "open" Ackleberry and maybe even Jojobo-in-Exile. They won't be "major" orgs (those would be the HCE and the AFE), so it might be easier to release and manage them.
The "new guilds" we have now would be shuttered, since the cities and communes would be the "guilds" of this system.
That's it, that's my take.
I prefer an even number over an odd number - but why force these alliances. Why not draw it along the lines they ar now, turn into two super orgs and let them havee at each other - give them two fancy names to reflect what they are.
My hot take on this is to play more on the city vs commune conflict. Remake the Holy Celestine Empire and the Alliance of Forest Enclaves. Pro: you only get 2 real factions. No more issues of alliances and what not. I mean, the traditional 3v3 or 2v2 setup of Lusternian conflict is really just...1v1. So you might as well double down on that.
Then, under those two super orgs, you can make each individual 'city' be like a guild. So there's Celest, Magnagora, Hallifax, and Gaudiguch all intact under the HCE umbrella. And under the AFE, you can have Serenwilde, Glomdoring...plus, you can finally "open" Ackleberry and maybe even Jojobo-in-Exile. They won't be "major" orgs (those would be the HCE and the AFE), so it might be easier to release and manage them.
The "new guilds" we have now would be shuttered, since the cities and communes would be the "guilds" of this system.
That's it, that's my take.
I prefer an even number over an odd number - but why force these alliances. Why not draw it along the lines they ar now, turn into two super orgs and let them havee at each other - give them two fancy names to reflect what they are.
The current alliance and balance issues as well as some other issues have led to a snowball effect that has dwindled one sides population to a fraction of the other. I think we should remember how we got to this point in deciding where we need to go from here. Reducing from 6 orgs to 4 with the same population, same alliances, and same balance will change very little. I think it is clear as a playerbase that we are not going to balance this ourselves due to whatever reasons. Therefore, any hope the game has to become balanced and enjoyable for all sides will need to come with strict admin interaction. Several ideas have been suggested, but they are met with that won't work. Current state isn't working. I would like to see admins enforce a 1v1v1v1v1v1 before deletion of orgs to see if that would actually help before doing something as drastic as deleting an org, but every mention of this gets a lot of rage.
I think (though I am basing it on facts, not anecdotes) that actually the sides are fairly even at the moment.
Although that depends on your way of counting.
I don't think there are enough admin to enforce a 1v1v1v1v1v1. And it would not be that fun a game with such small numbers. Only Glom and Magnagora have the numbers to win that.
I really don't see a 2v2 working, because nothing is changing, unless of course we're closing the most populated org from each side to make this 2v2, and even then.
@Kistan what are your facts? Are you referring to the very few times that our side has been able to get to close to even numbers? Would you like to discuss the Nil raid where we were so vastly outnumbered that caused Innon to pull the trigger on retire? Would you like to talk about the 3v11 Celestia raid? Would you like to talk about all the village revolts where your side had several more? How about the fact I haven't seen us even be able to mount a 2:1 try during Wild Nodes? If we do at all mount any type of even numbers more of the opposing side begins to wake up because they want PvP which then leads to us being outnumbered even on our best days.
Stop blowing smoke with the facts and anecdotes terminology. Anyone that has any current knowledge of the game knows that population is not even in the least.
How is 1v1 better than 2v2? Like if you are against the idea of 2v2, should you not also be against the idea of 1v1? 2v2 at least allows some (theoretical) flexibility in alliances going forward, 1v1 would simply set any pop issues in stone forever?
How is 1v1 better than 2v2? Like if you are against the idea of 2v2, should you not also be against the idea of 1v1? 2v2 at least allows some (theoretical) flexibility in alliances going forward, 1v1 would simply set any pop issues in stone forever?
Hence, I support 1v1v1. 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 are just ratios as you pointed out. 1v1 could work if it is two differing RP options. That is why I think the original trinity is the best option light, dark, or forest.
Unless population of combatants change then no shift makes a difference. This is one huge reason why Glomdoring being frozen is a huge fix.
How is 1v1 better than 2v2? Like if you are against the idea of 2v2, should you not also be against the idea of 1v1? 2v2 at least allows some (theoretical) flexibility in alliances going forward, 1v1 would simply set any pop issues in stone forever?
I don't think you understand what the ratios are referring to. 2v2 is not equivalent to 1v1 in this context. If there are four orgs(what is normally meant when someone uses 2v2 about Lusternia) then that is four separate factions, where two and two have chosen to cooperate. 1v1 means there are only two factions, ie, two orgs that are competing. 1v1v1 means there are three factions, all in competition with each other.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I've only made it through half of the comments so far.
While I think it may be necessary to concentrate players into fewer groups, it's a short-term solution. 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.
Removing half of the orgs in the game will make the remaining orgs bigger, yes. But it won't stop people leaving, and won't fix any of the actual problems causing the decline in the first place. I'd rather see all of the effort going into fixing what's wrong with the game than waste all that time on a short term solution.
Can we get an AMEN for this?
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
How is 1v1 better than 2v2? Like if you are against the idea of 2v2, should you not also be against the idea of 1v1? 2v2 at least allows some (theoretical) flexibility in alliances going forward, 1v1 would simply set any pop issues in stone forever?
I don't think you understand what the ratios are referring to. 2v2 is not equivalent to 1v1 in this context. If there are four orgs(what is normally meant when someone uses 2v2 about Lusternia) then that is four separate factions, where two and two have chosen to cooperate. 1v1 means there are only two factions, ie, two orgs that are competing. 1v1v1 means there are three factions, all in competition with each other.
The people in this thread who vocalized being against 2v2 did so because they wanting a system of shifting alliances so we don't get locked into a population imbalance. 1v1 is... exactly the same thing. To make it more clear, imagine this 1v1 that is created is Gaudi-Mag-Glom vs Halli-Celest-Seren. Ok, everyone cool with that?
Comments
Celest & Magnagora would be the cities & Structures as far as the coding goes.
...but that's where it really stops.
You could archive the newsboards, if feasible, as a historical reference for the two merged cities while adding a new one for the Org to write in. Evolve the Grand library & Cartels to merge player creations & works as well as allow new ones to be added. Whipe enemy lists
...and done?
Not sure how this is in any way dismissive of players or RP. It preserves everything of value.
I mean, maybe guilds would need a rework? That's the only obstacle I can really tell. But i'm sure we could just preserve current ones and Re-Brand them along with the city change. AkA evolve the Rp to fit with the new direction the city is going.
As an example, Celest is a name that carried a massive amount of historic baggage. You have over a decade of Celest meaning a certain thing to players of the game, loads of implemented historic information about what Celest has done in the past. (including the pretty messed up stuff they've done to Gaudiguch)
It's a name rooted in their connection and relationship with Celestia.
So when an old player comes back and sees Celest, they're going to assume it's current Celest. Even just simple things, like if you did give them "ownership" of the Vortex and Celestia it leads to the obvious question of why they would name themselves for one of their cosmic creches and not the other.
It is a whole messy situation that could be entirely avoided by just coming up with new names.
Can argue around the social differences between Mag's social stratification vs Gaudi's freedom focus but there's far more the the orgs than that, afaik.
Magnagora & Celest, aside from the fact they were suggested as being kept, I love the branding behind them. They are both lovely beacons of Good vs Evil firmly attached to people's minds when you think of Lusternia. Same could be said of Faethorn/Maeve/ Great spirits of Nature vs just ackleberry, serenwilde or glomdoring.
Lore & RP shouldn't be something we look back and decides locks us in, instead it should help us create brand new things and reach out to others.
Personally? I'd rather imagine we can birth something new and move forward....then hope we end up with in-game civil wars in orgs + mass shrubbing or people quitting for good.
I rather like my friends and I'd like to keep them.
I'm not opposed to meeting new ones either
But I won't have someone step on who I am, that's not right.
But I've decided that you're not actually honestly engaging with the conversation given you've also suggested that civil wars, mass shrubings, and people leaving a game that is dying are a good thing.
Doing this before melders means that long standing issue could potentially be done faster if the work load is reduced as a result. Which would, in theory, settle some of the big complains circulating around at this point.
Then, under those two super orgs, you can make each individual 'city' be like a guild. So there's Celest, Magnagora, Hallifax, and Gaudiguch all intact under the HCE umbrella. And under the AFE, you can have Serenwilde, Glomdoring...plus, you can finally "open" Ackleberry and maybe even Jojobo-in-Exile. They won't be "major" orgs (those would be the HCE and the AFE), so it might be easier to release and manage them.
The "new guilds" we have now would be shuttered, since the cities and communes would be the "guilds" of this system.
That's it, that's my take.
Accountability is necessary.
Would require more dev time to get the carrot of Ackle and Jojobo which would probably draw people in and that's kinda counter to the suggestion from Estarra that this could be an opportunity to reduce the number of classes in the game.
Carry on, chaps.
What I want: Bringing something new and moving forward
What I - do not - want: Civil wars, mass shrubbing & people quitting.
Thanks @Synl for believing in me ♥
Hope this clarifies my point of view, i'm genuinly sad this even needed clarification.
-Goodnight
1) Two large opposing factions, nothing else.
2) Three factions enforced into a 1v1v1
3) Two diametrically opposed orgs, with a true neutral 'mercenary' org
4) Two pairs of two diametrically opposed orgs, of the 'enemy of my enemy' rather than real alliance
Do I expect these to hold up? Well first and second are achievable, third would be a lot harder to pull off, would need some heavy-handedness on the admin side, and even more so for the fourth.
I prefer an even number over an odd number - but why force these alliances. Why not draw it along the lines they ar now, turn into two super orgs and let them havee at each other - give them two fancy names to reflect what they are.
Like the rest of it though!
Stop blowing smoke with the facts and anecdotes terminology. Anyone that has any current knowledge of the game knows that population is not even in the least.
Hence, I support 1v1v1. 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 are just ratios as you pointed out. 1v1 could work if it is two differing RP options. That is why I think the original trinity is the best option light, dark, or forest.
Unless population of combatants change then no shift makes a difference. This is one huge reason why Glomdoring being frozen is a huge fix.