As this isn't technically Envoy territory according to the Admins, we have been asked to start a forum thread about it to gather player feedback.

Here are our two suggestions so far:

1) Village campaigns (sanctuary/crusade) changed as follows: Campaigns, in addition to taking equilibrium and 1p, also take "campaign balance." Campaign balance is 130 seconds. Campaigns are changed to end on the following conditions: Sanctuary ends after 120 seconds, or if the user leaves the room. Crusade is chnaged to be a room effect that follows the user and ends after 120 seconds, or if the user leaves a room through normal walking, swimming, movement while flying, or movement while burrowed, or if the user enters a room where there is a sanctuary. When a campaign fades, everyone in the room sees the campaign fade.

2) Village campaigns (sanctuary/crusade) changed as follows: You cannot raise a campaign when your ego is shattered via debate. If you have an active campaign and you are shattered, the campaign will fade after 2 minutes' time. This allows for time to run if you're debated out instead of being immediately killed, but the campaign is not indefinite.

What are people's thoughts on these two ideas, and what other ideas do people have to fix the following imbalances: Sanctuaries used to create unbreakable demesnes, Crusades being unusable due to the prevelence of forced movement (including PASSIVE forced movement from druidic and aqua demesnes, which cancels them), and the "zerg" stategy of sancing an entire village, Seren-style, degrading a "violent" revolt into a peaceful one.

Parts of this are viable (all people see when campaign fades). Others aren't (campaigns ending after a period of time.) MAYBE a 1-2 minute campaign balance could be put in, making it such that influencers can only move every 2 minutes but can actually stick to a room when trying to influence a denizen, because that would be the least backwards change of all of these. Also it's not like crusade and sanctuary are used for the same thing. If you're crusading it's highly likely that you don't care if you ends after 120 seconds, because your group will have finished killing anything you feel like and already influenced the denizen by then. If you sanctuary you can't say anything similar.



There's really no need for this either. It doesn't address any existing imbalances.



Sanctuaries being used to create unbreakable demesnes is bad. Crusades being "unusable" because of that is rarely the case. What generally happens when people crusade is they're either doubling a villager's speed/effectiveness (don't think anyone answered which it was for sure) with no disadvantage or camping a room so no one can sanc and they can pwn any influencers passing through en route to somewhere else.

The passive forced movement is infuriating as is (although are you sure crusade dissipates on different elevations? I don't think treelife injures it, only aquamancers), and the Celestian strategy of mass sancing villages is...what sanc is for. Such that influencers can do their thing. Doesn't seem like a problem.

I stanchly disagree. Having a way to break unbreakable sancs IS a way to fix unbreakable demesnes. Unbreakable demesnes ARE a problem. People just sitting there afk in a sanc is NOT condusive to a good game, just a "whomever has more people wins" scenario, which is why Seren is leading so immesnsely. We have tons of people who will help....... only if they can do it afk.

But that's not what happens in the actual revolt. Sometimes people who are shattered go sit sanc, but normally the only time I see that happening is when Celestian novices do it (the ones that don't care if you debate them out or not. And they tend to do it when it's peaced anyway, presumably so that they can analyze.) There's a strictly better way to fix the problem: stop unbreakable demesnes WITHOUT breaking unbreakable sancs.

Suggest a way that doesn't make sanctuary a demesne-breaking weapon. There honestly isn't one, and both Forren and I at least see unbreakable sancs as a severe problem and imbalance in village revolts. Crusade is trivially breakable - why isn't sanc?

Because sanc and crusade aren't used for the same thing. Crusade isn't breakable by debate, and even if it were, people would just kill the debater. Crusade is used to gank people who would use sanctuary, and to freely get mobs at double speed/effect. Sanctuary is used to stop people ganking you. It doesn't inherently hinder anyone else's influencing EXCEPT for the demesne thing. Also surely if you can break someone's demesne using sanc (unless they're there it doesn't matter as you could do it anyway) they can break yours right back, or just reforest/meld.

They can't terrain/meld if you're in a sanc. Sancs, you know, prevent aggressive actions like those.

Which they shouldn't.

EDIT: Those things specifically that is.

I agree with Shorlen. These changes are definitely needed. I'd be fine with both.

There's something wrong when a particular organization can just whore sanctuary and win a violent revolt by preventing violence from breaking the demesne in the first place. Sanctuary is just too easy to whore.

I hope you mean either

I would like to point out that with the change you are proposing to crusade regarding forced movement, I can raise 120 seconds crusades in a chain of rooms simply by using crusade and have someone tackle/gust me out to the next room.

they would still fade if the person left, Clise

Crusade ends after 120 seconds, or if the user leaves the room through normal walking, swimming, movement while flying, or movement while burrowed, or if the user enters a room where there is a sanctuary. When a campaign fades, everyone in the room sees the campaign fade.

Revan, so if the person leaves because of forced movement, the crusade will still remain there. It will be in place for the remainder of 120 seconds and I am sure I can put up 4-5 rooms worth with a minute left in the first room at least. Enough to gank all influencers who wishes to cross over.

Sorry, that was poorly written. Revan knows what I meant. I meant it would follow the crusader. I'll update the suggestion to make that clearer.

Clise raises a good point about the abusability of the crusade proposal. Personally, I see no need to make crusade more potent. It has a rather major effect. I think the bigger issue is how freaking resilient sanctuary is. It. Never. Goes. Away.

THAT SEREN MOONBEAM !



Ahem.

I don't want more people to die. I want more people to run away. I want more options for the people left behind in Glom to deal with the Seren horde. In a more general sense, I don't want a 1p diluted trueheal to be available to the world. The 10p version in one skillset is bad enough. And, more importantly, I want the answer to the combat evasions to have their roots in influence tactics so as to not unduly tilt things in favor of narrow-minded combatants. Nothing seems to make more sense than debating out causing campaigns to fade, especially with the advent of dramatics.

You wouldn't be able to do that because of the campaign balance suggestion, meaning that your sanctuary/crusade lasts 2 minutes, but you can only use it every 2 minutes and 10 seconds. So basically this would be a humongous nerf to sanctuary, considering that if you used it and someone pushed you out of the room, you wouldn't be able to use it again for 2 minutes and 10 seconds. More than enough time for someone to come in, crusade, and kill you in 30-40 seconds.

edit: this was to clise

Umm, noone can push you out of a room if you sanc.

Currents?

Tossing out another idea to consider. How about requiring full health/mana/ego to use sanctuary/crusade, and then having it use a good bit of mana/ego, or give a constant drain.

Edit: Or giving a much more expensive power cost.

Doesn't happen in sanctuary...

But you can still drown in sanctuary.