OF WAR AND PEACE
11-08-2014, 12:48 PM
Things have come to my attention. Rather, they have remained and nagged at my attention for months now as I've sat by and slowly watch the work put into the pack challenge system and siege system go to utter and ruinous waste. The decay of the siege system is especially painful to watch for me; as someone who aided with its creation--I named sieges, for one--it's easy to imagine how it simply sucks to watch, for lack of a better phrase.
Whether you love them or hate them does not matter. If you detest fighting, it doesn't matter. If you adore it, it doesn't matter. I'm here to discuss the health of the site's activity and diversity--something that does matter. So whatever disposition you've set up for sieges and fighting needs to be politely left at the door and I encourage you to take up the calm and logical mindset of someone looking for productive discussion on the matter. To put it simply, we're discussing the prospect of potential change. Please continue with an open mind and an attention to detail, reading all of the proposals.
So what led to these descents?
FIRST - PACK/PACK CREATION CHANGES
The first notable dagger put into sieges and pack challenges were the population and pack creation caps. I will discuss this in the order of: creation vs challenging and then the number of packs themselves.
The cost is something that's extremely important with creating packs vs challenging for them. Since I know that pack creation is a feature unlikely to be rid of anytime soon, I'm left with pressing on the requirements for it. Pack challenges cost 400 gems and require 100 posts while pack creation requires 500 gems and 200 posts, as well as 5 followers.
Let's put these two side-by-side. 400 gems is about 80 posts, which leaves 500 to be about 100 posts, meaning that both gem amounts are well-earned by the time that you meet the posting requirements. As far as value goes, for 500 gems you can get a brand new pack, fresh and clean, with your choice of territory while using only half (500 gems) of your earned (1000) gems. But what do you get for a pack challenge? You get the chance at a pack for 400 gems--which takes up all but 100 of the gems that you have earned. And that's about it. Sounds pretty appealing, right?
My point lies in this. Pack challenges hold very little face value anymore. The OOC social repercussions sometimes included with that package deal of 400 gems doesn't help that, either, but that's something I alone can't change so I won't particularly bother to discuss it in-depth here--that's for another day and for another discussion. Pack challenges are literally too expensive for what they're worth. Either that, or pack creation is far too cheap. Finding five followers in a member-base such as Alacritis is deceptively easy--between familiy members and character's children, a character with 200 posts can just as easily pluck out five of the individuals they've met without batting an eyelash.
So I propose that pack challenge costs be dropped to around 200 or 300 gems, but the post requirement remain the same or raised, OR pack creation requirements be boosted massively in terms of gems and/or post counts.
The original number, if I remember, that was first proposed/enacted for post counts was 300 or 400--which is literally probably the best two numbers for it. 300 sounds perfect--it assures that an individual has been here for long enough to be familiar with the ins and outs of Alacritis while having a highly-established or active character worthy of staking out a guaranteed new pack. If not the post requirement being raised, then the gem requirement for claims needs to be raised to be proportionate to the current pack challenge gem:post ratio. As aforementioned, if you challenge at 100 posts, you only have 100 gems left over (100 x 5 = 500 and challenges are 400) while if you claim, you have around 500 gems left over (200 x 5 = 1000 and creation is 500).
Next comes the number of packs allowed. To put it simply, 15 is far too high of a number. 15 packs means that there is the potential to have around 30 alpha characters on the site, with secondary alphas factored in. And that's simply an outrageous amount that takes away the sense of achievement of being an alpha. There used to be a sense of pride and achievement of gaining an alpha position because your hard work put you above the rest. Your hard work make you one of six or seven, and at max, twelve or fourteen, and you were rewarded for it in this manner. It was a big deal and one of the few worthy goals in Alacritis--something to work for. And now, it's mediocre at best with so many alphas and packs.
Think back to when you first joined, when there were only five or six packs. If you were a member who had no ties to anyone on the site whatsoever, choosing even one of those packs as a potential place for your character was overwhelming. Imagine being a member now and having to choose from not six, not eight, not ten, not even twelve, but thirteen packs. That's simply suffocating. That's thirteen packs to consider for just one of your characters and for someone brand new to the site, it can easily confuse them.
The pack cap and vast increase in the number of packs also gravely harmed the worth and benefit of sieges. With such a massive multitude of packs and the low cost of pack creation in comparison to challenging, sieging on someone feels pointless, mostly because they can just as easily create a new pack afterwards, as we've seen. Disbanding is also fruitless--it just allows someone to claim the pack back, and if your character has ever wanted to siege on another pack, I'm certain you know how dissatisfying that is. Not to mention the social stigma that also goes along with sieges--but we'll get to how to prevent that later.
My proposal for the pack limits is to lower the pack cap to around tenor eight packs. Massively and extensively more active and fast-paced sites cannot even fill all of 10 sometimes and still have some of the most diverse affiliations and varieties I've ever seen--and it's wonderful, and it's healthy, and lets your hard work amount to something. Ten or eight would also make it easier on newcomers. As for the matter of the current number of packs and what we would do with them since there are currently 13, I have my next point and reason for the slow downfall and decay of pack challenges and sieges:
SECOND - DISBANDMENT SYSTEM
disband
verb (used with object)
1. to break up or dissolve (an organization)
Currently, pack disbandment means very little. In fact, the current pack cap is even trivialized and will be useless to even think about after we've reached 15 packs due to the disbandment system. Disbanding still keeps that pack in existence--and it's this that is the problem.
Disbanding should actually disband a pack. Not put it up for claim. The pack should be completely removed whenever it disbands, and this would be a method to get the number of packs back under a new pack limit--by enough packs eventually and naturally (or sometimes forcibly) disbanding to reach that cap. As it stands, disbanding is one of the rewards for winning a siege but, as aforementioned, it's not much of one. This would truly make sieges worthwhile as a motivating and driving force of plotting and character development, also.
This would also create higher consequence to evading sieges and challenges through disbandment. Right now, there is very little and it is dealt with very frivolously, when such a matter should be taken seriously. It could also be used as a tactical move rather than what has proved itself to be an evasive one.
Also, as made vastly apparent by the Sawtooth challenge, an actual process of intentional disbandment needs to be put in place or intentional self-disbandment needs to be removed as an option completely.
THIRD - POPULATION CAPS
Remove the population caps. Allow a territory to expand infinitely if the leader earns the gems to buy expansions. They're unnecessary and vastly contribute to every aforementioned drawback to pack challenges and sieges. Nothing really else to say on the matter that hasn't been said.
FOURTH - SIEGES THEMSELVES
As of now, there is little benefit to being on the receiving end of the siege. The attackers gain everything if they win but the defenders seem to gain very little, contributing to the negative attitude of the community towards them. All I have on this matter is a change to sieges that I proposed months ago (and has been mentioned vaguely as a 'possibly upcoming change to sieges' if I remember right. ages ago.) when the whole 'siege on Covari' plot was driven to unnecessary drama and ruin. I will draw this to public attention:
Anyway, please contribute to the discussion and your views on everything presented, and please add whatever you have to say! Thank you for reading!
Whether you love them or hate them does not matter. If you detest fighting, it doesn't matter. If you adore it, it doesn't matter. I'm here to discuss the health of the site's activity and diversity--something that does matter. So whatever disposition you've set up for sieges and fighting needs to be politely left at the door and I encourage you to take up the calm and logical mindset of someone looking for productive discussion on the matter. To put it simply, we're discussing the prospect of potential change. Please continue with an open mind and an attention to detail, reading all of the proposals.
So what led to these descents?
FIRST - PACK/PACK CREATION CHANGES
The first notable dagger put into sieges and pack challenges were the population and pack creation caps. I will discuss this in the order of: creation vs challenging and then the number of packs themselves.
The cost is something that's extremely important with creating packs vs challenging for them. Since I know that pack creation is a feature unlikely to be rid of anytime soon, I'm left with pressing on the requirements for it. Pack challenges cost 400 gems and require 100 posts while pack creation requires 500 gems and 200 posts, as well as 5 followers.
Let's put these two side-by-side. 400 gems is about 80 posts, which leaves 500 to be about 100 posts, meaning that both gem amounts are well-earned by the time that you meet the posting requirements. As far as value goes, for 500 gems you can get a brand new pack, fresh and clean, with your choice of territory while using only half (500 gems) of your earned (1000) gems. But what do you get for a pack challenge? You get the chance at a pack for 400 gems--which takes up all but 100 of the gems that you have earned. And that's about it. Sounds pretty appealing, right?
My point lies in this. Pack challenges hold very little face value anymore. The OOC social repercussions sometimes included with that package deal of 400 gems doesn't help that, either, but that's something I alone can't change so I won't particularly bother to discuss it in-depth here--that's for another day and for another discussion. Pack challenges are literally too expensive for what they're worth. Either that, or pack creation is far too cheap. Finding five followers in a member-base such as Alacritis is deceptively easy--between familiy members and character's children, a character with 200 posts can just as easily pluck out five of the individuals they've met without batting an eyelash.
So I propose that pack challenge costs be dropped to around 200 or 300 gems, but the post requirement remain the same or raised, OR pack creation requirements be boosted massively in terms of gems and/or post counts.
The original number, if I remember, that was first proposed/enacted for post counts was 300 or 400--which is literally probably the best two numbers for it. 300 sounds perfect--it assures that an individual has been here for long enough to be familiar with the ins and outs of Alacritis while having a highly-established or active character worthy of staking out a guaranteed new pack. If not the post requirement being raised, then the gem requirement for claims needs to be raised to be proportionate to the current pack challenge gem:post ratio. As aforementioned, if you challenge at 100 posts, you only have 100 gems left over (100 x 5 = 500 and challenges are 400) while if you claim, you have around 500 gems left over (200 x 5 = 1000 and creation is 500).
Next comes the number of packs allowed. To put it simply, 15 is far too high of a number. 15 packs means that there is the potential to have around 30 alpha characters on the site, with secondary alphas factored in. And that's simply an outrageous amount that takes away the sense of achievement of being an alpha. There used to be a sense of pride and achievement of gaining an alpha position because your hard work put you above the rest. Your hard work make you one of six or seven, and at max, twelve or fourteen, and you were rewarded for it in this manner. It was a big deal and one of the few worthy goals in Alacritis--something to work for. And now, it's mediocre at best with so many alphas and packs.
Think back to when you first joined, when there were only five or six packs. If you were a member who had no ties to anyone on the site whatsoever, choosing even one of those packs as a potential place for your character was overwhelming. Imagine being a member now and having to choose from not six, not eight, not ten, not even twelve, but thirteen packs. That's simply suffocating. That's thirteen packs to consider for just one of your characters and for someone brand new to the site, it can easily confuse them.
The pack cap and vast increase in the number of packs also gravely harmed the worth and benefit of sieges. With such a massive multitude of packs and the low cost of pack creation in comparison to challenging, sieging on someone feels pointless, mostly because they can just as easily create a new pack afterwards, as we've seen. Disbanding is also fruitless--it just allows someone to claim the pack back, and if your character has ever wanted to siege on another pack, I'm certain you know how dissatisfying that is. Not to mention the social stigma that also goes along with sieges--but we'll get to how to prevent that later.
My proposal for the pack limits is to lower the pack cap to around tenor eight packs. Massively and extensively more active and fast-paced sites cannot even fill all of 10 sometimes and still have some of the most diverse affiliations and varieties I've ever seen--and it's wonderful, and it's healthy, and lets your hard work amount to something. Ten or eight would also make it easier on newcomers. As for the matter of the current number of packs and what we would do with them since there are currently 13, I have my next point and reason for the slow downfall and decay of pack challenges and sieges:
SECOND - DISBANDMENT SYSTEM
disband
verb (used with object)
1. to break up or dissolve (an organization)
Currently, pack disbandment means very little. In fact, the current pack cap is even trivialized and will be useless to even think about after we've reached 15 packs due to the disbandment system. Disbanding still keeps that pack in existence--and it's this that is the problem.
Disbanding should actually disband a pack. Not put it up for claim. The pack should be completely removed whenever it disbands, and this would be a method to get the number of packs back under a new pack limit--by enough packs eventually and naturally (or sometimes forcibly) disbanding to reach that cap. As it stands, disbanding is one of the rewards for winning a siege but, as aforementioned, it's not much of one. This would truly make sieges worthwhile as a motivating and driving force of plotting and character development, also.
This would also create higher consequence to evading sieges and challenges through disbandment. Right now, there is very little and it is dealt with very frivolously, when such a matter should be taken seriously. It could also be used as a tactical move rather than what has proved itself to be an evasive one.
Also, as made vastly apparent by the Sawtooth challenge, an actual process of intentional disbandment needs to be put in place or intentional self-disbandment needs to be removed as an option completely.
THIRD - POPULATION CAPS
Remove the population caps. Allow a territory to expand infinitely if the leader earns the gems to buy expansions. They're unnecessary and vastly contribute to every aforementioned drawback to pack challenges and sieges. Nothing really else to say on the matter that hasn't been said.
FOURTH - SIEGES THEMSELVES
As of now, there is little benefit to being on the receiving end of the siege. The attackers gain everything if they win but the defenders seem to gain very little, contributing to the negative attitude of the community towards them. All I have on this matter is a change to sieges that I proposed months ago (and has been mentioned vaguely as a 'possibly upcoming change to sieges' if I remember right. ages ago.) when the whole 'siege on Covari' plot was driven to unnecessary drama and ruin. I will draw this to public attention:
My best and probably most reasonable idea would be to add a clause to the siege rules that states that when a siege is declared in a pack meeting, all involved parties cannot transfer leadership or disband their packs until the siege has ended. Of course, this wouldn't keep a leader from not fighting/responding, but it would make an IC transition for a situation like this much more smooth if it were to happen in the future.
Another idea would be to make the victory rewards for a pack being sieged on larger, to encourage people to embrace the idea of being on the receiving end of sieges for such bonuses. Perhaps a small, permanent boost to the pack's member cap (say, +3 maximum) that wears off only when the ruler is forcibly overthrown, or them getting to skip their next hunting thread or something of the like. Just something small but very appealing to anyone being sieged on. Or a base gem-reward for participating in a siege for all packs!
Also, it seems like Alacritis has a very negative attitude towards fighting and change--especially sieges. Perhaps encourage pack-wide training sesssions and offer small bonuses in siege fights for the wolves who attend. For example, every pack wolf that attends the pack's training receives a +1 or +2 total point bonus (after all points have been tallied) in a siege fight. A bonus like this would be dropped after a wolf changes packs.
Another idea would be to make the victory rewards for a pack being sieged on larger, to encourage people to embrace the idea of being on the receiving end of sieges for such bonuses. Perhaps a small, permanent boost to the pack's member cap (say, +3 maximum) that wears off only when the ruler is forcibly overthrown, or them getting to skip their next hunting thread or something of the like. Just something small but very appealing to anyone being sieged on. Or a base gem-reward for participating in a siege for all packs!
Also, it seems like Alacritis has a very negative attitude towards fighting and change--especially sieges. Perhaps encourage pack-wide training sesssions and offer small bonuses in siege fights for the wolves who attend. For example, every pack wolf that attends the pack's training receives a +1 or +2 total point bonus (after all points have been tallied) in a siege fight. A bonus like this would be dropped after a wolf changes packs.
Anyway, please contribute to the discussion and your views on everything presented, and please add whatever you have to say! Thank you for reading!
prone to violent reaction. ic actions have ic consequences and she lives and breathes it.public enemy #1
crawl. crawl more. drag your hands and knees across the destruction left in my wake to the ends of the earth. there's a green light of a shining star in my sky and there will not be an obstacle i will not overcome until i cup that star in my palms. the void in my will has been filled with purpose. so crawl. crawl more, love.
because i like it when you're on your knees.