Yeah. It's getting to the point where I don't really understand why I'm still trying out here. I mean, there is so little point to actually exerting effort into a system this broken. I feel as though every inch of progress I make gets shoved ten feet back because a group of 10 people can just tear through and kill everything they see rather than actually work through the influence system. Who cares how well you can influence or under what circumstances the influence is taking place if the entire system can be subverted through persistent playerkilling? It's a shame, it's a lovely system, but it's just broken.

I just wish there were more -limits- on getting everywhere by killing. I have no problem with it being a viable option, but it is at all times the -best- option in Lusternia, it seems. If you have something against slaughtering a village over and over until it revolts and then turning around and saying 'we love you, join us', you're our of luck. Hypocrisy is the way to go.

I mean, couldn't killing villagers perhaps kind of reflect badly on you? Maybe if you killed people even while another city controlled the place, the villagers would come to hate your city as well? That way, you have to find a balance, you could kill them and have the village open faster but be harder to get, or wait and have it take longer but be easier. You wouldn't be able to just kill with impunity to stop other people from influencing if you want a village, you'd have to actually -use- the influence system. Killing a citizen of a village should have a much larger negative effect than it does.

We've got this whole new, unique system, the option to have options -other- than just killing people, and it just ends up degenerating into a mindless kill-fest. I have no problem with PK. I -like- PK, it makes things interesting, even if I suck at it. And I don't mind killing villagers, it is certainly an option for some cities. But killing shouldn't be the -only-option, or Celest is just more or less -wrong- for having principles. We don't want to randomly kill people and then turn around and influence them a day later, so we're damned well out of luck.

Forgive me if I sound a bit bitter. I have nothing against Magnagora, I try not to blame -them- for beating us. They should be doing most of what they do, they're not meant to be blinding examples of righteousness, they play their role well. My complaint is that anything -but- their way seems to be just plain inferior.

Don't worry, if Mag gets Delport, there will surely be another downgrade.

As for making villages harder to influence by those who raid it, yes, it makes since, but won't it take away conflict by making raiding more harmful than useful.

My point is more that raiding should be useful to a point. It should be an option, to get the village away from someone else, if you think you can handle taking it, but it should also have some drawbacks. It should be balanced either way.

If it's bad to make raiding more of a hindrance than a help, it should also be bad that actually being -nice- to a village is more of a hindrance then a help. Right now, the fact that we've never layed a hand on a village and someone else has killed everyone in it six or seven times isn't helping us at all. The nice guys are getting beat down, our way is not proving to be any good at all. No side in a game like this should ever just clearly have the right way of doing things, or there's no fun for the players on the other sides. They're just wrong, plain and simple.

I'm not sure how to respond to that. As soon as I heard about the statue bug, I did my best to fix it as soon as possible even though I was at a disadvantage at not being at my coding terminal and had to work in VI through a shell account which, believe me, was not an easy thing. There's no grand conspiracy here, just the administration trying to do our level best to treat all sides fairly.

I understand your frustration. I do have some ideas to help make the village influencing system more logical but please bear with us and keep in mind that these sorts of changes take time to implement.

Inaction is often better suited to a situation than action. This particular instance favoured inaction. Look at what happened with the war system in Aetolia. During the biggest war, there were plenty of things that were bugs that were causing the sides that found them to get big advantages. But ultimately, the best option was to leave it the way it was until the conflict was over. Changing it mid-form would have not only pissed off the people that were using it, it would have pissed off the people that had been victimized by it and hadn't had a chance to use it back.

It's my personal opinion that this is the better policy. I'd rather leave the situation the same for everybody, even if it was never intended to be that way, than make a change that fundamentally affects the way everything is taking place, particularly when you don't know what effect the change will have on the conflict as a whole. Maybe you disagree. I don't know. It just seems silly to me.

The system isn't 'broken' which is obvious since Magnagora and Serenwilde have succeeded in influencing villages. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement or adjustment. Celest has been making great strides and its efforts have indeed paid off. It's just that you aren't used to the fact that it takes more effort than it had previously. Again, I'm open to adjusting the system but I don't believe it's fair to adjust it in mid-stride.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the statue bug or not, but if so that was not a case of a bug that started at the beginning of the influence of Delport. It was a bug that turned up well into the middle of it (which was a bug that was a result of an attempt to fix something that had nothing to do with influencing but with the Avenger) and it was fixed as soon as practical.

What is it with you people and conspiracies? Celest insists that the gods are favoring Magnagora, and Magnagora insists that Celest is getting everything handed to them on a silver platter (and that they're getting 'downgraded' because they're doing so well). I have the dubious pleasure of hearing both sides and sometimes I feel like I just can't win.

Sorry, I was unclear. Broken in the sense that there's one good way to go about it, and any alternative means is inferior and unreliable. This is pretty much the case, and, as Jerah has pointed out, conflicts with any good attempts to comply with an ideology that does not glorify the killing of anything and everything in sight. The only alternative, as Serenwilde did, is to lie down and yield to those who are killing everything in sight and work out a pact of some sort. -Why- the Serenwilde did this, I have no idea, as it obviously conflicts with their ideology, but that's relatively unimportant in the grander scheme of things, wherein adherance to an ideology is punished by the system rather than promoted. In this way is the system broken.

And it's not about how long it takes. It could take 6 months for all I care. It's about the efficacy of different methodologies inherent in the practices of those who adhere to different ideals as dictated by history. Celest simply isn't going to go around killing villagers that don't support them, and unless you as the world designers want to tell us that our ideals are openly wrong (We're getting there anyways, given the fact that even our patron Gods don't match our ideals and there are no suitable alternatives), we're going to keep trying to do things in a manner consistent with what we represent. I hope that sticking through everything at such an obvious disadvantage has some impact, however small, on future developments to the system, as otherwise I think a lot of us are just going to start feeling like all of our time in the realm is a waste.

One additional suggestion I would have to make things logical is that a village go into the influence period with slight preference based on the administrative stance they were last under.

If a city was despotic (or whatever it is) the city that previously owned it might start out with a influence deficit.

If they were benevolent (or whatever the more positive one is) the previous owner would start out with a leg up.

Needless to say, the neutral stance would result in a null preference to the previous owner.

One reason I suggest this is because I heard someone suggest that the city go despotic when it sensed the end of the cycle was near to suck out as much benefit as it could. I really dislike it when people play the code rather than the role, but what can you do. But this adds the incentive.

Things may already be set up this way, but since killing off half the population doesn't seem to prejudice ones cause, I figured it was a semi-safe assumption to think it wasn't.

Thats not a half bad idea, Baen. It would further discourage people from being heavyhanded and greedy in their approach.

To all those who complain about people being evil to them, then influencing them straight back, have you ever actually sat their and read the descriptions of what the Magnagoran influence skills do? Its not JUST flavour text : P

They intimidate, coerce and threaten the villages into following. If anything, past experience would make them -more- susceptable to that.

I don't like the length it takes to influence a village. 5 hours with no interference from anyone else? Pah. But then again, 17 minutes was just as bad. I'd personally like to see 1-3 hours to influence a village (That is under perfect conditions, with no interference), but the villages should come into play much more often, just felt to long. I'm afraid what's going to happen, is Estarra said that all villages coming into play at once was a fluke. So when only one village comes into play, you'll have 3 organizations trying to influence it, and consequently, it would take a week or more to influence it. Should be a shorter amount of time to convince them, like an hour or two, but come into play twice as often.

Just a comment on all you people who think that just because you kill a population they will be less likely to follow you. History of the world shows that those who have slaughtered and maimed and conquered have gained more territory than those who kept to themselves and allowed people to live life thier own way. But at the same time those governments did not last as long... as is seen by the political structure. When magnagora switched governemtn types, villages soon revolted.

I think there should be a mix between Silvanus's idea and the way it apperas to work now. After 1-3 hours (based on previous cities governement type and city trying to influence it) the village holds a vote. If the group that the vote went to.. say Celest still has a current majority of villages... like 80% then they get the village. If another city has more than 30% then a "recount" is made every day untill a city has the 80% so then Serenwilde can win the village.

As an update.. Serenwilde got Dairuchi hours after Magnagora decided to not work on it anymore. In the meantime... delport revolted some 9 hours ago.

I will get as close to begging as Knightly possible without actually doing it...

Please, Please, Please, Please lets not start this :censor: here in Lusternia.

In Achaea, Mhaldor is insanely outclassed and use this as their reason for remaining unprepared and not working well together. They use it as a crutch for losing and in return, they never get better. Even worse, its resulted in a Land with NO balance due to over nerfing and/or over compensating by the Divine who were subjected to this type of non-stop insane whining.

Landmarking wasnt only destroying because it sucked, Mhaldor lived decades with no essence because they refused to learn unit discipline and blamed the system rather than themselves.


Currently, we of Celest are also outclassed BUT it is natural given the state of things today and within our direct control to fix without godly interference or coddling. It takes alot of work and commitment, unit discipline, response time pratice, role based responsibility ownership and an early commitment to PK and bashing at the same time.

How not interesting would it be if the outcome of "politics" remained balanced always, where every city was guaranteed their fair share of cities? not.

The best man needs to win, and when he does, he should win BIG.

Well, just one thing... If Celest cannot influence undead (and magnagora can) and the orcs aren't a suitable option for serenwilde and Celest, due to their alignment and way of life...
I mean, please, some restrictions on Magnagora too? Like they have it more difficult when trying to influence normal human beings like delport or southgard that might see a bit strange following a city full of demons and weird looking people...

To be perfectly honest, while the suggestions put out there are good, I don't really think it has anything to do with the current state of affairs regarding Celest and I really hope the Admin doesn't try to balance things to the point where a city can be as unorganized as Celest and still do well. Even if there was NO killing and villages that were in play were no-PK areas, Magnagora would probably still win simply because they have people who are higher than CR 2 that actually log on and they have an actual plan.

Celest has neither. The reasons for Celest doing poorly lay mainly with Celest, not with the code, the influence system, etc. Maybe a few years without villages is the wake up call Celest needs to get its act together and start actually holding its leaders and each other accountable. We'll see.

With my character being a citizen of Celest I do find it a bit interesting that city leaders have the time to write long, informative posts here in the forums when we don't hear a peep from some of them in the actual game.

Who is writing long posts here that you don't hear a peep from? Jerah and I are the only ones in the Council that are -ever- here. *g*

It isn't just about leaders not being accountable. From what I can tell, one of the hugest problems is that Celest is simply lacking in people with the experience and desire to lead in combat. So much so that it the only difference between the leaders and the followers is often that, amidst several people asking, "Who do we follow? What do we do?", the leader is the one person who says, "Follow me."

Instead of people who enjoy leading in combat and are good/experienced at it, you have people who don't like it, don't want to do it, but are willing to try because someone has to.

Instead of people who enjoy PK, you have people who don't like, don't want to do it, but are willing to try because the city needs it.

Doubts about whether this is actually leading to an enjoyable gaming experience aside, you have to realize that accountability is hardly the issue here. People need time to learn, and to gain an enjoyment in doing these things that isn't being constantly crushed by being forced into conflict at horrible odds to such an extent that they don't even want to think about fighting or strategy when they don't have to. With the lack of existing experienced leaders, the time needed for this is going to be longer.

Celest could establish a truce with Magnagora to buy this time, but I don't see that happening without stepping on a lot of pride.