honestly we dont care if you lose xp or not. Its not why we kill people in influence runs, we need to take you out of the action hence we kill you. This also makes me not like any conglutinating ideas, it just makes you come back faster.

About daevos' suggestions, I actually like all of them better than any of the other suggested ones.

Forgot, only Mag can have a self-rezz nearly instantly.

I like how you conveniently forget about Trueheal and Resurgem Covens, and also forget to mention Serpent (which is like a get-out-of-combat-free card). There's a number of abilities designed to help escape death, or lessen its effects. People just seem to enjoy jumping on the "I !<3 Lichdom!!" bandwagon.

Except Resurgem relies on a whole bunch of other people and Trueheal costs 10 power (which a lot of people don't have mid-combat) and you have to use it BEFORE you die, and it doesn't give you a free escape route like Lichdom.

Except Resurgem relies on a whole bunch of other people and Trueheal costs 10 power (which a lot of people don't have mid-combat) and you have to use it BEFORE you die, and it doesn't give you a free escape route like Lichdom. And Serpent is overpowered and is being changed (and it costs 10 power also).

In addition, Resurgem requires the Coven leader to be on balance/eq in order to rezz, and that's still susceptible to if your corpse got eaten/fossilized/lastrites before you could get resurgem'ed.

Serpent is great, but since it's not a guild skill, most people won't bother with it until they already have at least one or two Trans guild skills, hence you'll still see more people walking around with Lichdom over Serpent.

If only Lichdom worked like Soulcage and instantly rezzed you, I'd like to see how much Necromancers would bitch about that.

The whole exp loss or not loss thing needs to be removed from influencing. It would leave the 'inconvenience' feature of death, which would reduce a lot of frustration.

Lichdom has its own advantages over Trueheal and Resurgem, just as those abilties have their own advantages over Lichdom (Trueheal's offensive use, prismatic barrier, and Resurgem's removal of the person from the scene/area of the death ). It's a Transcendant skill, of course it's good: it's on par with Trueheal, and about on par with the current iteration of Serpent as well.

However, let's not turn this into a debate about Lichdom: that's not the purpose of this thread. There's other threads out there, or you can poke Amaru to make a thread about Lichdom. I was just pointing out that there are a multitude of other abilities to help escape/prevent death, the majority of which are not available to Magnagora.

Back on topic!

I agree wholeheartedly. Exp loss should be removed from influencing to make it more fun for everyone involved, and lessen burnout and frustration.

I'd be glad to see demesnes removed from village influencing. As the only mage around half the time it's gotten to the point where I just want to quit taking part during influencing but I don't because I know the city needs me.

Removing demesne from a village is probably not going to happen due to technical reasons. But if you follow the original post to its logical conclusion, it gets demesne out of villages moreso than now in at least three ways:
1) If a demesne max size is smaller then it will be easier to chip away at it and destroy it.
2) If demesne effects only work for the area that the owner stands in, the owner must face the combat in order to have any impact rather than hiding in another city. This makes it easier to kill off the owner of the demesne (and provides a discouragement for mages to demesne an area since now they have to put their neck on the line). Once you kill the owner, just scare him out of the territory, or forcibly summon him out, the demesne has effectively been removed for a time.
3) Fixing the sanctuary bug will have a similar impact as the above.

Also, I think it is important to follow through on what would happen if XP loss was eliminated in villages. A few bad things may happen that are not being thought of:
1) It eliminates the dissincentive for mages to make and hold down demesne as I described above. And so it increases their use.
2) It may have people looking for loopholes. Like instead of fighting in the village, because I'm an @$$hole I will instead summon you out and slay you where I know you will lose XP. Thus the griefers may try to abuse loopholes in such a way that you don't really gain anything. This one reason why I am partial to having at least one or two peaced villages, though I don't think Estarra agrees with me since she didn't list that. But at least in that case you have a situation where people who do not like PK even with no XP loss have an outlet, and it is less prone to loopholes than what I foresee with just ditching XP loss in villages.
3) It sort of feels contrived to me in the sense that there is no in-game reason for it. Why don't you lose XP? That's the whole game vs. world debate, where for it to be a world it must have a reason or otherwise it is purely a game mechanic. Obviously we have some things that fall into the latter, but I think it is good to minimize those.

If they're in a position to do that, they would have been in a position to kill them under normal circumstances and make them lose that same exp anyway. So it seems a minor setback.



This is where IRE excels! Take a gaming concept and make it a roleplay feature. Should be doable by some means, I know most people here have great creative imaginations.

Removing demesne from a village is probably not going to happen due to technical reasons. But if you follow the original post to its logical conclusion, it gets demesne out of villages moreso than now in at least three ways:
1) Lowering the max size of demesnes down to 200 will not effect village influencing much since no village is that size
2) It is not easy to kill a mage/druid in a large demesne for several reasons. For one, team support, no organization should leave their mage without some guards. Two, the strength of demesne themselves, they are more than strong enough to dismantle a team. Especially the Druid and Aquamancer demesnes, since they passively move their enemies around.
3) Could you explain that one a bit more, how will it be fixed exactly?

Also, I think it is important to follow through on what would happen if XP loss was eliminated in villages. A few bad things may happen that are not being thought of:
1) I think it increases their ability to maintain their demesne, since if they die, they can reject grace flow/teleport back in, and put effects right back up within a minute. Making it almost pointless to kill them. Also continuing the current trend of village victory being determined almost solely by the numbers of mage/druids you have.
2} I don't see this as a problem since if they summon out of the village, they will get suspect. And be open to curses, and possibly vengeance.
3) I guess it is somewhat contrived, but it goes with my ideal of turning village influencing into Lusternia's version of CTFs. And its a better solution than conglutinating.

That's a good point...Therefore I think that if you die during influencing you should still be forced to pray, however your xp loss would be equivalent to that of conglutinating.

Perhaps for the same reason that you learn something from killing someone, unless afterwards they happen to turn into a lich. What is that reason, by the way?

What Daevos said is absolutely correct about exp loss.

The Avenger protects the areas outside villages. If someone abuses that, they will be subject to curses and vengeance. Since vengeance peaces the person, they will be effectively removed from the village influencing if they abuse it continually.

Removal of exp loss, to me, is a win-win scenario.

The in-game justification should take the back-seat to mechanics that improve the game overall, and influencing in particular, in this case. Exp has a pretty fair precedent set for that already: what's the justification for increased exp loss in enemy territory, or decreased loss in allied territory?

We're going to go with the changes along the lines as I posted in the other thread. I do not like the no-xp for death as it will simply turn the villages into a combat bloodbath where there is absolutely no concern for one's personal welfare.

Nor will we remove the random factor so people know ahead of time when a village will revolt. Not only will that derail the politics code, but it would simply turn village influencing into more of an old-style landmarking event which we shall avoid.

Sanctuaries!

Sanctuary is where no one can be attacked in that room and provides some non-PK tactics to use during village influencing. How's that compare to dying with no xp loss?

Hate to argue with you, Estarra but I have never known anyone who didn't enjoy CTFs, which were no exp lost events that lasted about 2 hours. On the other hand Landmarking was a grueling, thankless, and tedious task that went on for over 25 hours. And I do not see a adequate comparison between the result of making revolts not random with the stupidity of landmarking.

The current state of village influencing is very annoying. The randomness is a major factor of that. People who care about the advancement of their organization and wish to help in villages are forced to sit on this game for hours and hours just to increase the chance that they are here at the right time, and its extremely frustrating when you miss the revolt anyway.