Pretty simple, methinks. Just want to know.

Yes.

That is all.

I'm undecided. I would like it to happen more often, but not if it will all be like that recent Delport session. That was hours too long.

Hell yes.

Yes.

But they should be like 2-4 hours long, not half, not one, not ELEVEN.

What about putting an upper limit on influencing - if you hit the limit, noone gets the village that round.

Umm, when they did revolt more frequently, wasn't there that outcry about everyone being burned out?


That might be good, except that I could also see something like that potentially leading to disillusionment and people not bothering to try, eventually. No one likes marathon influencing sessions, but at least in the end those who successfully secure the influence have a good feeling of pride for having stuck to it. Have it happen a time or two too many, and people who have been trying with nothing to show for it but time wasted and frustration might stop trying entirely.

part of the problem was the amount of time -each- influecning session took more so then how often the villages revolted. It would be nice if there was a village revolt atleast once every 9 days.

We haven't seen it in action yet, and frankly the RP isn't rock solid, but the new revolt system has the potential to be a LOT of fun if it ends up being Serenwilde vs. Mag in one towne and Celest vs. Glom in another. Of course, the two powers will probably each go for the easy picking but what can you do. If village influencing becomes cooler, more of it would be nice

I'm with Tsuki - there is no happy medium. People may want villages to revolt more now, but just as soon as we have 3-4 villages go off in 2 days time (and that will happen eventually), everyone is going to be so dead and exhausted, they won't want to see another village in play forever... and thus, the cycle repeats.

Hence why you'd set the upper limit to be, say, a RL hour. If it doesn't work it goes up for influence again in a RL week, give or take 3 days.

The trouble is synchronisation - and as we've all found, the current situation is a month of quiet followed by 4 days of the villages falling. I think perhaps the Admin should've just spaced things out so you don't get this artificial synching.



And this occurs because we're all relatively good at influencing when we have the numbers; and this can lead to maddeningly long influence sessions. I think villages should take less to influence and last for less time. I also think they shouldn't fall over so close to each other. That'd allow for more frequent village influencing sessions without the level of exhaustion we've seen in the past.

ew.. only one hour max to win a village? You'd never be able to win unless you were the only force to show up.

Although I had thought up this "max limit' idea some days ago myself, (I even came up with an RP reason for it, being that the village is sick of the fighting going on for so long, or they've heard the arguments for a whole day or so, and need some time to think.) I rejected it.

Do to the fact that there is already a 'max limit' set up, or rather a reverse exponential curve or sorts as far as the 'win' senario of the points you score when influencing a village.

The longer it takes, the littler the differance needs to be between the 1st and 2nd place influencers in a village. The cap (even when 3-4 nations are in the influencing and 2 are very-very close in the lead seems to be around 9 hours, stewartsville reached that curtial point, and delport did as well.

Yes I'm sure that most will agree that 9 hours is to long for a village influencing.

I could argue that it lets more people from more time-zones compete in a village...

...but the fact remains there are already things in place that not only determain who wins, and how they win, and how long it takes. If you are going to change part of it, the rest will need to be radically modifyed too.

If you change the time-limit to 1 hour, or even 2-3 hours, and keep the other parts of it the same (score counting and win senario) you will have a lot of uninfluenced villages out there.


There have been influencings shorter then 1 hour with multiple groups fighting over the village, just not recentally.

As for the fastest I've seen, with only one group there? That is somewhere around 8-15 minutes as well. (Mag took Ankrag once in 15, and serenwilde took rockholm once in around 8.)

I despise the idea of a "limit." I feel it makes sense that the most enduring organization should pull off the win in the end.

I was their for a hour or two, went to work and they were still fighting for it (8 hours)

I just wish Angkrag wouldn't revolt when there's only one necromancy user in the city.

meh such is life, it has happened to all orgs that there was a village they wanted while there was nobody around in their city/commune.

Wish I could of motivated Glomdoring more to get Angkrag

More revolts will be nice, though lets see how the new system works out, maybe they will revolt more since several villages revolt at the same time. I think it will also be a lot shorter in terms of time.

Yes.

Becose with new village revolt change there will be less fights.



If Glomdoring wouldnt be so afraid of Magnagora they could easly take it.
But no, they just waited until more of you guys come.

To use Narsrim's favourite phrase: you're the pot calling the kettle black.

Perhaps you should consider your unfortunate relationship with Serenwilde before you start urging Glomdoring to place itself in a deeply icky situation.

Yeah. Celest is clearly afraid to actually compete with Serenwilde for a village. They have alliances and treaties up the wazoo. They even prune the Serenwilde rose bushes.

Yep yep, let's just ignore all the recent evidence to the contrary and cling to whatever sounds good.