Toadies, Lackeys, Stooges and Chumps....

/rant on:

What is it that makes a person start a game and then make a play to try to get into the biggest or most established clans as soon as they can? I've had the extreme displeasure of talking to people that will tell me "as soon as I get high enough, I'm going to try to get into 'clan X'" The result of this lazy behavior is that the largest clans stay the largest.

Most recently, I spoke to a good friend that was bragging about how his newly formed clan was "getting in good" with one of the larger clans on our server. Now while I think that having allies and server politics is healthy, I think that the parasitic behaviors have gotten completely out of control and this is making L2 a shadow of what it should be. Castle sieges have become so boring that people rarely sign up, the checks and balances that should be in place to keep groups from growing too powerful have been undermined completely, and the lack of action has left the server population dull and lifeless.

As I thought on this I came up with a few things that I've noticed that cheeses me off to no end:

-- If your main character is in a clan that is a continuation of larger clan (usually marked with a "II" or "2" in the title).

-- If your clan has 3 allies but you are still considered to be allies with any other clans to the point that they have to help you defend your territory

-- If you are a high level clan with less than 14 members but for some reason you own a castle. (actually I don't blame the clan that owns the castle at this point, I blame the server for allowing this to happen)

I have more pet peeves, but I didn't want this to turn into a book. I just always thought that L2 should be a constant power struggle. I believe that this is what the developers had in mind when they created it. Since our servers have become so content with our masters (the clans that run everything), the developers are adding all kinds of silly code with the hope that it will spur us to start some kind of confrontation in the game. It's sad that it had to come to that...

/rant off


Da Smookster...

i agree wholeheartedly. i think there should be more limitations on who can declare in castle sieges (to prevent these sub-clans from taking them over), as well as on the raidable clan halls (for example, i dont think all the high level clans should be taking over places such as the partisans hideaway -> level restrictions anyone?). maybe im just missing the clan to clan interaction that was so prevalent in the earlier iterations of the game.

is the game really designed to be a fight for control between two or three major regimes, or are the little guys actually supposed to be able to have some sort of influence? i'm well aware that the smaller clans and alliances could band together to fight the forces of injustice, but they're all so hungry for even a sip of the sweet nectar of victory that it is typical for them to slice each others throats along the way.

i just don't like seeing it as "L2 - stickin' it to the little guys since 2004".

Well, people like to be part of something exciting as well as something successful. They see successful allies that might mirror some of what they want to be/capture in the game and they want to be a part of it.

This game is more than pvp or grinding. It's about power, charisma, politics.

People who lead such alliances have created a mystique, a presence. Charisma has something to do with that. Not everyone wants to lead an alliance like that or even compete because they feel that they would just be reinventing the wheel. They want to be a "part of it".

Changing certain things about the game such as "how many clans one can have in an ally" is a bit artificial. People make friends and forge relationships. It would be artificial if they said "only one ally of 3 clans can sign up for a siege".

That would discount all the other alliances that might want to compete or even stop the siege.

That is what this game is about. Anything else is just a different game. You might as well say "you can't attack someone less than 4 levels below you. It would be a very viable gamplay mechanic but it wouldn't be this game where everything goes and you essentially carve out your niche.

Castle sieges have become so boring that people rarely sign up

That is true in many cases but not most. What they need to do is make the rewards of owning a castle so attractive that alliances rethink their role in owning one or even sieging one.

the checks and balances that should be in place to keep groups from growing too powerful have been undermined completely, and the lack of action has left the server population dull and lifeless.

I'm not sure there are really checks and balances. If you mean Dawn/Dusk then I would agree with you. But the idea of this game is power.

On the Epic Collection set there are a few "behind the scenes" movies. One of them has an interview with one of the developers who says that it is his hope that every player strives to be emperor. To be a king.

That is what this game is about. Groups growing in Power and taking what they feel is rightfully theirs. Though I do know that on Hindemith there is a little bit of Democracy in that if an alliance becomes unliked, the entire server will show up to depose them. It's actually really exciting if you think about it.

As I thought on this I came up with a few things that I've noticed that cheeses me off to no end:

-- If your main character is in a clan that is a continuation of larger clan (usually marked with a "II" or "2" in the title).

Well, it's not original but it does make clear "who you are part of."

-- If your clan has 3 allies but you are still considered to be allies with any other clans to the point that they have to help you defend your territory

I don't agree. I feel that you should grow your power (if that is what your clan is about ) and take over as much as you can. It's about politics, star chamber conspiracies. That is the game.

-- If you are a high level clan with less than 14 members but for some reason you own a castle. (actually I don't blame the clan that owns the castle at this point, I blame the server for allowing this to happen)

I would say that if a small clan owns a castle then they played the political game well. Besides, they could be a small clan in an alliance that agrees to share castle ownership.

I have more pet peeves, but I didn't want this to turn into a book. I just always thought that L2 should be a constant power struggle. I believe that this is what the developers had in mind when they created it. Since our servers have become so content with our masters (the clans that run everything), the developers are adding all kinds of silly code with the hope that it will spur us to start some kind of confrontation in the game. It's sad that it had to come to that...

/rant off


Da Smookster...

Well, it is. The problem is that when you rely upon player interaction to create the content you never know what you will get.

I think that what you DO get is extreme highs surrounded by a low of stagnation.

Anything is possible. But then again, the players who are in control "wanted it". They probably gathered others of like mind to hold on to their power. This is what (sadly) happens in the real world.

I would say that you need to gather your own forces and take down the powers that be on yoru server.

I posted this story before but I will post it again. A while back, in Star Wars Galaxies one of the servers was controlled by the Empire. They held all. Apparently the Rebellion was pretty much nothing.

One player was sick of it and over the course of time made a plan with some of the strongest but responsible rebel groups to overthrow the Empire.

They set a time and date and when the time came. They did it. The Empire was taken completely surprised. Players called their group mates on the phone and told them to get in the game because they were getting wiped.

It was futile and the Rebellion won.

I read this in an edition of one of the popular gaming magazines.. might have been pc gamer.

Point is, it is possible to rise up but it takes "a certain something" to make it happen.

That is your struggle. It is, in some ways, far more sublime than just sieging but it takes greater skill and determination to make it happen.

Sovrath, I agree with the developers....

I wish that everyone wanted to be emperor or king. In that regard, everyone would be more inclined to try to seize power for themselves and not simply follow the same three people around like heel hounds.

I appreciate how you romanticize the laziness of these players and overstate the influence of the clan leaders. I've seen how these shifts in power work. Some clans get together to take over clan A's castle. Once defeated, the new top dog starts getting applications from all the smaller clans that now want to be in with the winners. Now we have a new regime that lasts for about a year until we get a rinse and repeat

The checks and balances in this game should stem from the desire to be on top. As far as friends go in the game, if my best friend in RL joined an enemy clan, I'd give him a glaive in the back with no remorse or regard. In RL we're still cool, but in game "I gotta do, what I gotta do". This game is supposed to be about power, crossing lines, and the occasional treacherous act. A clan and it's allies should think about "How do we take down the top clan and take their place?" not "How can we get in good with them?".

I write this to hopefully make people change their current course of action. This game isn't supposed to be about a major coup once a year, it's supposed to be about finding the best way to get to the top and noting who's throat you have to cut to do it. Not saying that it should be an elbow to elbow bloodfest every day, but anything is welcomed compared to the unending slothfulness of the game.

There is alot of content on this game I've never seen. I have never seen Zaken. I've never seen Baium, I've never seen any high level raid boss or dragon, actually. I really want to see those things, but I'll be darned if I join a high level clan to do it. I really wish more people would follow suit...


Da Smookster...

I think you're seeing not problems with the game, but problems with the people that are influential on your server, and some of your gripes would only cause more problems. Sieging on Lionna has been in full swing up until the last 2-3 cycles. The big bad boys (invincible and chaos) fought each other. The little fish (the neutrals) fought each other. Mirage fought both groups at the same time. It made for some really exciting sieges because people usually fought other people within similar ability levels. The big boys fought for aden, goddard, oren, and giran, and innadril, dion, and gludio were left for everyone else.

But that's ended now. But its not entirely the game mechanics. Its the politics. Mirage now brings invincible to defend their castles, so they've edged out all of the neutrals. Chaos's descendents (Imperial, Syndicate) are too busy fighting each other to worry about invincible (another reason invincible shows up to neutral sieges). The rep point system has made it advantageous to beat up on weaker allies, which is now being done.

The point is though, sieges being exciting or not depends on the people on the server, not the game. That said, I do wish they changed it so that only those signed for sieges could participate in them (similar system to the Festival of Darkness where if you aren't in the group you can't attack anything in the area would be perfect if applied to sieges such that if you aren't signed you can't attack anyone). Its kind of lame that a group of s-grade heroes can swoop around to 2-3 sieges at once wrecking havoc everywhere. Confine them to one siege, and there's room for a lot more people to get involved.

Yes, but they won't change.

This is a game where people, in many ways, get to act how they act in real life (or get to "get away" with what they can't get away with in real life).

People are not going to act in a different way then they would normally act when the game comepletely supports them "being themselves".

The only real way to change anyhone's mind is to lead by example.

But even then, people are people.

How many of you are going to go to college, graduate, get a good job, get married, have some kids, buy a house in the suburbs and pretty much take the day to day as it comes?

Now, how many will go to a thrid world country and create housing and drainage and help with the poverty their?

How many people will devote themselves to changing the political structures in their own countries in order for the lesser voice to be heard?

Probably more will do the first and much less will do the other two.

It doesn't mean that the people who do the first are any "less" but that they will do what works. It takes extraordinary will do break away from the mold in order to follow a completely different path.

And in a video game? Heck, there is only so much that people will do before they say "hey.. it's just a game" and move on to "Hello Kitty Island Adventure". ;)

You can't get water from a stone ( don't anyone dare post HOW you get water from a stone :mad: ) and you can't make people play a game differently "just because".

Wish it were so but, hey... free dummy :p