Cheap? No, not really. Smart, and common-sense tactic.
What you're saying, is that any organistation trying to influence a village that doesn't have superiour military might will get stampeded.

Sure, they weaker side can sanctuary to influence... But without being able to use Sanctuary as it is now, simply sanctuarying a few rooms while the superior combat force strolls around influencing, won't give a win.

Heh. I honestly think that once a city goes into play, the entire village should be perma-sanctuaried. Why? Think about it...

The whole idea behind Influencing a village is that you are trying to show them that your way is better than the others. When you walk into their village, start flooding/tainting/growing crap, killing people in their homes, killing them (Magnagora likes to influence and then have someone enemied kill that denizens), etc... it just gets retarded. We have a way to get people out (Debating)... at the very least, excessive combat should count against an organization... count against it a lot.

...except that not all city influence skills are 'hey, we're cool, let's be friends!' I think Magnagora plays out the 'if you don't go with us, we'll tear the crap out of your village' theme. I can see why it has been pushed toward non-violence, but to eliminate violence as an option sounds lame to me.

Actually, that's not what Magnagoran's influencing tacts are. Magnagora tries to brainwash, awe, etc. I mean think about it...

Let's assume you rush into a village and want to "influence" someone to your cause. You try and convince them (via brainwash) that you are really the "good" guys and everyone else is lying. You speak of your empire as mighty and grand... and they certainly do fall in line.

However, the second you murder an innocent person in their -house- I don't see how they are going to suddenly say, "You know what, I want Magnagora to possess this village because their way seems the best for our village."

That's not what brainwashing looks like at all. Really, brainwashing has the wrong name, it should be called false bribery.

The -entire- village being santuried would be incredibly stupid and make village influencing even worse then it is.

Not true at all.



I think the important part there is "...tales of what has happened to villages that don't follow ..." Making an example of a few non-cooperative villagers is exactly the sort of thing we do to remind the others that Magnagora is where their allegience lies.

Perhaps I'm wrong but the whole appeal of Influence was supposed to be that it didn't revolve around combat; however, with villages that just isn't the case.

I'm not exactly very experienced at the village influencing ordeal... but to me it seems approximately balanced between combat and non-violence. The campaigns allow for a strategy of either to be used effectively. I do have one hesitant suggestion, perhaps - that campaigns either last for a set amount of time (say, 1 minute) regardless of whether the person remains in the room, or alternatively, have them require a very slight ego upkeep.

I do agree with Narsrim about when violence is turned towards the villagers, though. I think it should count strongly against the city of the attacker. You scare people by telling them what will happen if they don't obey, if you go ahead and do it, why are they going to look to you for protection now?

The introduction of Sanctuary and Debating seemed to be pushing us towards less violence in village influencing.

Making in-play villages immune to Avenger protection has pushed us towards more violence in village influencing.

So far, the latter has proven to be the larger factor by far.

Since the admin have pushed in both directions, looking for the proper balance, I don't think you can say that they're aiming for one direction or the other. I also don't think you can say whether we're at the balance they intend.

The easy solution is to set up a crusade before the combat begins. This will prevent the other person from setting up a sanctuary, and it also gives you an influence boost as an added bonus. (And it's part of the reason why crusade exists in the design: to prevent people from doing just what you describe.)

Why aren't they going to think "Crap, they can actually back their words up.." or "Hmm, if we join them they'll call those people off.."

Why aren't they thinking "Hmm, if we join Celest.. Magnagora will start killing villagers.."

If that made sense, Drago, then it'd make just as much sense for them to be swayed away from Magnagora every time they didn't get killed. I think you'd come out on the losing end of that pursuit-towards-realism, as world history will show you. (World history is full of cruel, murderous regimes oppressing neighbors, and even more full of those iron grips proving tenuous, ephemeral, and ultimately self-defeating.)

Gameplay>Realism.

You can do exactly the same thing to your villages while you're influencing. What stops you? Some OOC misguided thought that you're a good city/commune.

Your loss.

You're quite right, that is definitely one possibility. But it does introduce a definite advantage to Magnagora (and maybe Glomdoring, depending on its philosophy).

How about this change: If a villager dies to a player from one organization, they remain utterly uninfluencable by that organization until the village is out of play.

Ie, if they've just been hacked to death by someone they're phenomenally unlikely to turn around and be willing to accept them as an overlord. It's self-preservation.

My thinking was that saving villagers lives from some terrible repurcussion of not choosing Magnagora is definitely a motivator. But when that terrible repurcussion starts happening BEFORE the decision is made, then the whole trustworthiness of the city's offer starts decreasing.

say to villager "If you don't choose us, I'm going to kill you!"
*kills them*
say to corpse "Now... don't forget to choose us!"

It's called "roleplaying". Maybe you've heard of it?

There are a million little things which place the ability to influence a village in this order:

Magnagora > Forests > Celest

Lich, omen, wisp and flow come into this. Look at the demesnes.

Geomancer - rubble, walls, prone, hunger
Aquamancer - defence strip, stun, etc (good for 1v1, not good at all for teams)
Forests - wisp, flow, throw into trees, etc

A lot of other factors also, that's before we consider the fact that the playerbase goes...

Forests > Magnagora > Celest

I think this is mainly to do with the fact that someone who wants a fighting character immediately chooses (perceived) evil, and good ends up with the philosophers, pacifists and those snugglers who don't join the forests.

You chose to make your character roleplay that way, its your loss.

I wouldn't blame it all on skills, Amaru. I'd blame it on all the geeks flocking to Magnagora, where they stay up 8 hours longer than they planned on, just to help influence.

The skills certainly have something to do with it though. (Don't forget currents, though, Amaru, that's pretty nasty in groups.)

Celestian Mages also seem to have issues with commands such as

Flood when we enter the room
Demesne summon anyone who enters the demesne.