House Renaissance

Taraza · November 2014

Nature is more complex, than just simply walking around patrolling and just picking flowers than what most outside adventurers think. To involve Nature in a more organised structure is going to be complicated but I think it's very possible.

I think Eleusis is better as well with two Houses instead of three. Three Houses for Eleusis has always been a little much, Eleusis does not have an overwhelming playerbase or a large CWHO at most times.

The structure itself can be divided two into and focused more (I think it's said above as well) into more externally and internally focused orientated.

Nature can be focused internally and externally overall. There are ins and outs of each realm of Nature goddesses such as Gaia (I don't know much of) and Artemis. That this can be combined with to actually be successful as well....Eleusis and Nature has a lot of options. But I don't think it's really wise to drop all of your Combatants into a House and then all of your scholars into another House. That's just going to divide Eleusis (Which it doesn't need) Point of Houses is to continue to provide an opportunity to further unity, yet to also assist in hone skills in a manner of interests with specalisations.

Achimrst · November 2014

Taraza said:

Nature is more complex, than just simply walking around patrolling and just picking flowers than what most outside adventurers think. To involve Nature in a more organised structure is going to be complicated but I think it's very possible.

I think Eleusis is better as well with two Houses instead of three. Three Houses for Eleusis has always been a little much, Eleusis does not have an overwhelming playerbase or a large CWHO at most times.

The structure itself can be divided two into and focused more (I think it's said above as well) into more externally and internally focused orientated.

Nature can be focused internally and externally overall. There are ins and outs of each realm of Nature goddesses such as Gaia (I don't know much of) and Artemis. That this can be combined with to actually be successful as well....Eleusis and Nature has a lot of options. But I don't think it's really wise to drop all of your Combatants into a House and then all of your scholars into another House. That's just going to divide Eleusis (Which it doesn't need) Point of Houses is to continue to provide an opportunity to further unity, yet to also assist in hone skills in a manner of interests with specalisations.

I for one TRY to be a combatant, as well as a scholar. I might not be great at combat but I'm willing to learn!

Antreus · November 2014

Sena said:

As a complete outsider with very little idea of the inner workings of Eleusis/Oakstone and their houses:

It seems like the current setup already fits pretty well with how Targossas and Cyrene are handled (splitting the houses by playstyle; though it seems there's not a lot of distinction between Druids and Sylvans), but it still has problems and is pretty tied to class. So I think the primary goal is to divorce the houses from the forestal classes, with a secondary goal of making the new houses different enough to shake things up a bit (which means splitting them up in a different way). Anything that leaves warriors vs scholars/priests as the main distinction is probably going to be too similar to what they already have, and so the old stagnancy/problems (whatever they may be) will remain.

With that in mind, my idea: Three houses. One focussed on defending Nature (not just through combat. Think a mix of protectors and tenders), one focussed on studying/exploring Nature, and one focussed on actively seeking out and working against potential threats to Nature, including all cities (again, not just through combat, but also through espionage, diplomacy, etc.). If Eleusis's population is better suited to two houses, then drop the scholarly house (I mostly left it there as a clearly non-combatant choice, since Eleusis seems to have a large population of hardcore non-combatants). The main point of this is the internal/external distinction, with the bonus of having a house that's inherently antagonistic towards the rest of the world.

As for lore/theme, I'm not sure. Something that promotes a wild/savage/tough image over the "kind and gentle" Nature would be good. Maybe you could go with animal motifs; Bears for the defenders, hornets for the invaders, owls for the scholars? Or maybe something like "Keepers", "Seekers", and something scholarly or explorer-ish ("Walkers"?). Or maybe Gaelic-inspired names (like leath-ri), though no obvious examples comes to mind beyond "Fomoire" or "Fomori" (though that's already used in Annwyn).

When I lived there last, Druids were the isolated conservative traditionalists, Sylvans were a liberal minority that left the Druids to live in Eleusis (druid culture was highly favorable to elders), and Sentinels were the Communists who were quite militant and cliquish. At that time there were 3 very clear definitions of what being a forestal meant. As a Sylvan who was formerly a Druid a lot of things the Sentinels did were entirely alien to me, such as yodeling culture.

People may overlook the fact that Druids, Sentinels, and Sylvans all came from very unique cultural mores and traditions, perhaps even contrary to what is contemporaneous now due to Houses. Oakstone in the early stages of Eleusis seemed to be a hegemonic arm of the Druids. Eleusis has had an equalizing affect on forest politics and consensus overall.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out or if Druids will choose to fade into a High Clan like the Serpent Lords. I can definitely see the Sylvans retaining their scholar bent, because of how deeply ingrained that culture is within that House. They have quite an extensive library and laboratory set-up.

Achimrst · November 2014

Antreus said:

Sena said:

As a complete outsider with very little idea of the inner workings of Eleusis/Oakstone and their houses:

It seems like the current setup already fits pretty well with how Targossas and Cyrene are handled (splitting the houses by playstyle; though it seems there's not a lot of distinction between Druids and Sylvans), but it still has problems and is pretty tied to class. So I think the primary goal is to divorce the houses from the forestal classes, with a secondary goal of making the new houses different enough to shake things up a bit (which means splitting them up in a different way). Anything that leaves warriors vs scholars/priests as the main distinction is probably going to be too similar to what they already have, and so the old stagnancy/problems (whatever they may be) will remain.

With that in mind, my idea: Three houses. One focussed on defending Nature (not just through combat. Think a mix of protectors and tenders), one focussed on studying/exploring Nature, and one focussed on actively seeking out and working against potential threats to Nature, including all cities (again, not just through combat, but also through espionage, diplomacy, etc.). If Eleusis's population is better suited to two houses, then drop the scholarly house (I mostly left it there as a clearly non-combatant choice, since Eleusis seems to have a large population of hardcore non-combatants). The main point of this is the internal/external distinction, with the bonus of having a house that's inherently antagonistic towards the rest of the world.

As for lore/theme, I'm not sure. Something that promotes a wild/savage/tough image over the "kind and gentle" Nature would be good. Maybe you could go with animal motifs; Bears for the defenders, hornets for the invaders, owls for the scholars? Or maybe something like "Keepers", "Seekers", and something scholarly or explorer-ish ("Walkers"?). Or maybe Gaelic-inspired names (like leath-ri), though no obvious examples comes to mind beyond "Fomoire" or "Fomori" (though that's already used in Annwyn).

When I lived there last, Druids were the isolated conservative traditionalists, Sylvans were a liberal minority that left the Druids to live in Eleusis (druid culture was highly favorable to elders), and Sentinels were the Communists who were quite militant and cliquish. At that time there were 3 very clear definitions of what being a forestal meant. As a Sylvan who was formerly a Druid a lot of things the Sentinels did were entirely alien to me, such as yodeling culture.

People may overlook the fact that Druids, Sentinels, and Sylvans all came from very unique cultural mores and traditions, perhaps even contrary to what is contemporaneous now due to Houses. Oakstone in the early stages of Eleusis seemed to be a hegemonic arm of the Druids. Eleusis has had an equalizing affect on forest politics and consensus overall.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out or if Druids will choose to fade into a High Clan like the Serpent Lords. I can definitely see the Sylvans retaining their scholar bent, because of how deeply ingrained that culture is within that House. They have quite an extensive library and laboratory set-up.

We have a laboratory?

Rangor · November 2014

@achimrst where you disect Mhaldorians to find out what makes them tick.

oh, and I'm a combatant that tries to be a scholar/ritualist/preacher.

Prythe · November 2014

Antreus said:

Sena said:

As a complete outsider with very little idea of the inner workings of Eleusis/Oakstone and their houses:

It seems like the current setup already fits pretty well with how Targossas and Cyrene are handled (splitting the houses by playstyle; though it seems there's not a lot of distinction between Druids and Sylvans), but it still has problems and is pretty tied to class. So I think the primary goal is to divorce the houses from the forestal classes, with a secondary goal of making the new houses different enough to shake things up a bit (which means splitting them up in a different way). Anything that leaves warriors vs scholars/priests as the main distinction is probably going to be too similar to what they already have, and so the old stagnancy/problems (whatever they may be) will remain.

With that in mind, my idea: Three houses. One focussed on defending Nature (not just through combat. Think a mix of protectors and tenders), one focussed on studying/exploring Nature, and one focussed on actively seeking out and working against potential threats to Nature, including all cities (again, not just through combat, but also through espionage, diplomacy, etc.). If Eleusis's population is better suited to two houses, then drop the scholarly house (I mostly left it there as a clearly non-combatant choice, since Eleusis seems to have a large population of hardcore non-combatants). The main point of this is the internal/external distinction, with the bonus of having a house that's inherently antagonistic towards the rest of the world.

As for lore/theme, I'm not sure. Something that promotes a wild/savage/tough image over the "kind and gentle" Nature would be good. Maybe you could go with animal motifs; Bears for the defenders, hornets for the invaders, owls for the scholars? Or maybe something like "Keepers", "Seekers", and something scholarly or explorer-ish ("Walkers"?). Or maybe Gaelic-inspired names (like leath-ri), though no obvious examples comes to mind beyond "Fomoire" or "Fomori" (though that's already used in Annwyn).

When I lived there last, Druids were the isolated conservative traditionalists, Sylvans were a liberal minority that left the Druids to live in Eleusis (druid culture was highly favorable to elders), and Sentinels were the Communists who were quite militant and cliquish. At that time there were 3 very clear definitions of what being a forestal meant. As a Sylvan who was formerly a Druid a lot of things the Sentinels did were entirely alien to me, such as yodeling culture.

People may overlook the fact that Druids, Sentinels, and Sylvans all came from very unique cultural mores and traditions, perhaps even contrary to what is contemporaneous now due to Houses. Oakstone in the early stages of Eleusis seemed to be a hegemonic arm of the Druids. Eleusis has had an equalizing affect on forest politics and consensus overall.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out or if Druids will choose to fade into a High Clan like the Serpent Lords. I can definitely see the Sylvans retaining their scholar bent, because of how deeply ingrained that culture is within that House. They have quite an extensive library and laboratory set-up.

I think that Druids have a unique background and history rich for RP that lends itself to so much, and I am going to be very sad to see it merge / evolve into "just another House" or disappear entirely.

I don't overlook the fact that Sentinels, and then Sylvans, left Druids because of different view points (and yes, in part, because of feeling stifled or pushed out).

Sentinels wanted City life, and gave up their Groves to move to Hashan.

Sylvans were Druids merged with Magi to, uh, well.... see reason the second.

Druids always was, and is, something special.

That I can no longer with certainty say "and always will be" hurts me, the person, Deborah Levinson, the person behind the player. Old woman. Windmill tilter, not just in Achaea, but in offline life as well.

Druid culture afforded us the opportunity to choose so many distinct paths, to think for ourselves when it came to service, so long as we were serving.

For a time we could argue against the establishment, in many ways go against traditional thought so long as we served, served, and served some more.

In game Conor and I had some differences, all related to some aspects of management style, NONE related to what service to Nature was or should be.

It really is too bad we could not stay in the same place to share that culture, those thoughts, those feelings, with others. Work together to continue to instill that core belief ideology in others.

Conor, then Brae, and now Oceana all have kept Druids true to Druid history and culture.

Bending over only when forced to by Divine will.

Player driven world?

Most of the time.

But not in terms of what was done to the Druid House close to a year ago.

Hopefully the Ren will not do the same, and kill off the balance of what makes Druids, and the balance of the Forestal community, unique among the game.

Antreus, I don't think Druids will go the way of a High Clan. Too many people/players are now vested in the concept that Houses must be part of Cities to thrive and survive, even though that very concept is inimical to Druid history and culture.

So they will have to work from within the confines of the Village.

And you and I, old friend, we will watch, mostly from afar, shaking our head sadly.... while still being inexorably pulled to find a way to be part of it.

Exelethril · November 2014

Renaissance = cultural rebirth, just saying. I'd like to see a more integrated Eleusis where the Houses actually work with the village and not try to be off-shoot entities. There are high clans for that.

Prythe · November 2014

Exelethril said:

Renaissance = cultural rebirth, just saying. I'd like to see a more integrated Eleusis where the Houses actually work with the village and not try to be off-shoot entities. There are high clans for that.

Renaissance = new way to try and engage and retain customers in order to maximize profits.

Sometimes that conflicts with RP, and sometimes it does not.

But let's not pretend it is about anything other than the above.

Achimrst · November 2014

Prythe said:

Exelethril said:

Renaissance = cultural rebirth, just saying. I'd like to see a more integrated Eleusis where the Houses actually work with the village and not try to be off-shoot entities. There are high clans for that.

Renaissance = new way to try and engage and retain customers in order to maximize profits.

Sometimes that conflicts with RP, and sometimes it does not.

But let's not pretend it is about anything other than the above.

I see the Renaissance as improving the inherent problems in houses.

Addama · December 2014

Prythe said:

Exelethril said:

Renaissance = cultural rebirth, just saying. I'd like to see a more integrated Eleusis where the Houses actually work with the village and not try to be off-shoot entities. There are high clans for that.

Renaissance = new way to try and engage and retain customers in order to maximize profits.

Sometimes that conflicts with RP, and sometimes it does not.

But let's not pretend it is about anything other than the above.

Except that it's not because it actually does the opposite of forcing or rewarding class changes.

Tael · December 2014

Prythe said:

Exelethril said:

Renaissance = cultural rebirth, just saying. I'd like to see a more integrated Eleusis where the Houses actually work with the village and not try to be off-shoot entities. There are high clans for that.

Renaissance = new way to try and engage and retain customers in order to maximize profits.

Sometimes that conflicts with RP, and sometimes it does not.

But let's not pretend it is about anything other than the above.

Druid culture isn't going anywhere. They aren't retconning it out of the world.

And you haven't even seen the new houses yet.

And if the new houses are too different, spin off a high clan! One of the neatest things about the renaissance so far is that people are finally starting to actually make use of high clans. And most of the better old houses work perfectly as high clans.

The point of the renaissance is that, while maybe the druids are exceptional, many if not most houses had serious problems. A lot of them were fairly nonfunctional. Trying to turn organisations that were largely defined by the classes they hosted into houses that allowed many classes was problematic. Many of those that did function well did so largely because they only accepted a single class, which was questionable with autoclass and flat-out won't work with multiclass. And those that did function were often held together by one or two people - the Occultists, the house with probably the richest player-driven history in the game, has basically disappeared now that they have a leader who is merely really good rather than the previous leaders who single-handedly sustained the interest and drive of the entire house.

Nor is the history of the druids all roses and sunshine. The druids were explicitly cited as one of the causes for the introduction of autoclass thanks to their insistence on maintaining multi-hour "interviews" with only one chance at success.

And on top of that, the renaissance is player-driven. As Sarapis has pointed out several times, they could have just stepped in and did it all themselves, but they didn't - they asked the players to figure out the new house configurations.

You will pretty much never fail to look silly suggesting that IRE's decisions are just to try to maximize profits. Sure, they're doing that to a degree - it's a business - but the admin of Achaea pretty clearly care a lot about the game and its history and its organisations. They're not just trying to cash in.

Prythe · December 2014

IRE did a major overhaul to get rid of Guilds and bring in Houses to solve other issues.

It is now trying again to cure the same issues which existed then. This may work or not work - but this time there is the twist, and this, along with multi-class, is definitely part of that.

Now, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I expect IRE to want to maximize profits. I never said, "Bad IRE, no profits!" I just pointed out that profits are a good portion of its motivation.

This is supposed to be a discussion, not an argument - but if y'all want to debate / defend something I didn't say, instead of having a discussion about the various things we're all saying, enjoy.

I prefer discussions myself.

Tael · December 2014

To be blunt, I think what you prefer is writing off people who disagree with you.

There was plenty of discussion. There was discussion of the place for Druid culture in the new system. There was discussion of potential ways to save it if the new houses do go in a direction that precludes retaining it. There was discussion of the point of the renaissance.

While we're "not pretending", let's not pretend like you weren't saying that IRE's motivation to "kill off the balance of what makes Druids" was a pretty uniquivocally negative thing motivated by IRE's desire for profit. Let's not pretend like you weren't absolutely saying there was something wrong with that because you very clearly were.

And that's fine! You can certainly be unhappy! But suddenly pretending as if it's a straw man or people are refusing to have a "discussion" whenever people don't agree with you is less fine.

That doesn't achieve anything.

If I were worried about the fate of the druids and were a longstanding member of that community, I would be starting to collect some fellow people who are similarly interested and look to creating a high clan - the sooner the better since it gives you a better chance to preserve important pieces of the material culture like books and items. Start talking to Divine and get things rolling. You don't have to just wait and hope things don't get destroyed.

Blujixapug · December 2014

I'm sure profit was a motivation for multiclass. And multiclass prompted them to look at turning Houses from organisations in many cases built around the themes and ideals of a single class - something incompatible with multiclassed players - into orgs with broader appeal.

But given that they are a small business operating in a niche market, it seems unreasonable to conclude they are willing to alienate their customers with a quick and dirty cash grab at the expense of jeopardising their playerbase in the long term. That would be stupid, even from a cynical perspective. People won't play a game that sucks, and people not playing the game won't buy credits.

Deleting and rerolling every House will alienate many people, and you have no obligation to celebrate and welcome it if you are one of those people. But it is also a major opportunity.

I don't think there's much value in protesting. You'll stay unhappy, everything will happen anyway, and you'll be left by the wayside. If you want to be happier I think a better way to go about getting what you want is to join in, ride the wave, take the best things from your old House, and work with whoever's creating its successor to try and incorporate those things.

Linton · December 2014

I can't help but wonder at the long term repercussions of the Ren. How much will the dropping of players from the game because of It affect the overall player demographics(assuming they belong to a group that can be delineated). If the effect is significant, how much will it then propagate forward when new players come in contact with the filtered playerbase, affecting further along the demographics of new players retained.

While IRE is operating in a niche market. I sometimes feel like the game is trying to appeal to a wider group of customer pool. Like it is going the route of ... text hack and slash while dropping away from more complex gameplay that is exercised by human ingenuity and creativity as opposed to rigid game mechanics.

Would totally love to see more of the advertised Depth, Political Intrigue and Player leadership(not administrative skill).

Addama · December 2014

Prythe said:

Now, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I expect IRE to want to maximize profits. I never said, "Bad IRE, no profits!" I just pointed out that profits are a good portion of its motivation.

This is supposed to be a discussion, not an argument - but if y'all want to debate / defend something I didn't say, instead of having a discussion about the various things we're all saying, enjoy.

Here's what you said:

But let's not pretend it is about anything other than the above.

The above being "maximizing profits."

Yes, you did say it. Yes, we're disagreeing with it. Don't pretend that you didn't suggest that this change was purely an attempt by IRE to make money. I think it's a positive change for anybody, whether they spend money on this game or not. Will that make the game more interesting and perhaps encourage people to buy credits? Sure, but you're suggesting that IRE is strongarming credit purchases instead of creating content that players will want.

Arador · December 2014

Well it also offers better value and convenience in a way to the players. You are much more likely to try a new class as a second class than to quit your current class, quit your current house, working your way up from scratch in a new house (if your house does not accept that class) and then finding out you do not like it and having to revert it all.

It is cheaper than alting to try another class since you still have all your additional skills like Survival, Miniskills and artefacts. So in that case it is better value.

And most importantly, new Houses are what old Houses should have been. Tying in class to your House means your RP is determined by your class and that always bothered me. If I change from Infernal to Serpent I would be expected to start acting like a Naga. What if I really do not want to? What if I would like to play someone with Serpent class that duels honourably and does not steal? Why would my chosen class determine what type of person I should be?

Asmodron · December 2014

Gosh...I come back to see 12 new posts here and got excited thinking another Renaissance was taking place. What a let down that it was just a pointless argument and a discussion over said argument....

Korben · December 2014

Prythe said:

Renaissance = new way to try and engage and retain customers in order to maximize profits.

The Renaissance is a fix for cities with troublesome House/City interaction and low-membership Houses. The playerbase has declined and many orgs that should have been retired were left on life support. This drives away newbies (few as they are) and hurts IRE's bottom line but it's also bad for the players. IRE has been consolidating orgs for a while; Orders were consolidated with Bal'met, now it's time for Houses.

Mishgul · December 2014

I don't know why a business wouldn't want to maximize it's profits to be honest and there is nothing wrong with that either. Obviously ethics can be an issue (I don't see IRE doing anything ethically wrong here), but at the end of the day they are trying to make a living and we are helping them, and they are helping us help them by trying to make the game fun where they statistically (I hope) see it would benefit the most people and alienate the least. Obviously it will be rough for some, but you can't please everyone.

Taraza · December 2014

Renaissance is more than just a few things that people are singling out over all. Everyone has a different prospective and the Gamemakers and business administration have to constantly contemplate ways of not only providing new ideas, but to bring in a profit base for them to continue to have a living.

Everyone knows the cost of living sucks now days.

Achaea is to be an enriched roleplaying environment, true.

But how does one make a profit off of that? Expansion and new ideas.

As @Carmain says there's nothing wrong with it.

Don't be so negative about the Renaissance. Here is a great opportunity to establish a larger playerbase, an even more enriched roleplaying environment, and expansion of profits to make @Tecton and @Sarapis happy.

Valdus · December 2014

Korben said:

Prythe said:

Renaissance = new way to try and engage and retain customers in order to maximize profits.

The Renaissance is a fix for cities with troublesome House/City interaction and low-membership Houses. The playerbase has declined and many orgs that should have been retired were left on life support. This drives away newbies (few as they are) and hurts IRE's bottom line but it's also bad for the players. IRE has been consolidating orgs for a while; Orders were consolidated with Bal'met, now it's time for Houses.

Replying to bolded.

I'm not saying it's not true, or that you're wrong or anything. It's just that I look at the utter powerhouse Achaea is and then look at Imperian these days and your statement about decline just makes me giggle my ass off.

As someone who has played Imperian since the beginning and seen it die, I have a ridiculously silly urge to dress up like a hipster and be all "We were doing declining playerbases before they were cool!" Or like, do a Bane impersonation from Batman and be all "You merely adopted the decline. I was born in it, molded by it."

Tee hee.

Sorry, I've had a lot of sugar tonight.

Synbios · December 2014

Much as I enjoyed my brief time in Lusternia and Midkemia, I find a lot more activity and life in Achaea.

Bronislav · December 2014

Arador said:

What if I really do not want to? What if I would like to play someone with Serpent class that duels honourably and does not steal?

You join Cyrene.

ONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

Valkyre · December 2014

Bronislav said:

Arador said:

What if I really do not want to? What if I would like to play someone with Serpent class that duels honourably and does not steal?

You join Cyrene.
ONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

Just be prepared for the inexorably slow movement of bureaucracy. I don't even know how long it's been since I sent my application letter.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019940/uploads/editor/g2/80n4zqbljdcm.gif

lol i kid #notkidding

Zuko · December 2014

Which city are we on again? Eleusis or Hashan? (In regards to renaissance)
Targossas, Cyrene, Mhaldor, Hashan, Eleusis, Ashtan?

Tarkanian · December 2014

I think Eleusis is next.

Shirszae · December 2014

It is Eleusis' turn now. Then Hashan. Then Ashtan.

Jules · December 2014

As an add-on to a few of the comments in the last page or so, another effect of multi-class will be that people will tend to have more invested in a single char than ever, so players will take the possibility of shrubbings more seriously than ever (or at least you'd think so). That should generally be a good thing.