Maybe it's just my bad memory, but where did I agree with Narsrim that killing the denizens is bad RP/metagaming on Magnagora's part?

If I DIDN'T say that anywhere, I'm going to have to make a snarky comment about reading my posts properly.

I'll agree, if we make it a single standard, not double, and include sanctuary and crusade in that.

I made a post about Celest doing it, you replied to it, defending Celest.

Yet, when Narsrim flamed Magnagora for it, you never defended Magnagora.

Ouch.

Okay, I'm confused now. You called me a silly thing, so it looked like it was responding to me, and then said "your" argument is void!

Sorreh, Nej, reread the thing, then realised it could be misinterpreted as the reply wasn't meant for you. Actually meant that the original wasn't meant for you. You just replied right as I was editing that one.

Yeah, I'm already irritated at Narsrim, so I decided I'd refrain from arguing with him at the moment until I've cooled down a bit. It's not that I wasn't defending you on that one, actually. I can see why you would think that though.

Debating is fine.

Melancthon debated/destroyed me earlier even when I tried to play it purely defensively. Scary guy. He has over 7k ego!

That was definitely flukey, then. Debating is really not fine. Burnt out a lot of people and WAS burnt out by a lot of people yesterday, depending on who was attacking. Attacker always lost, except once when I nailed Kaervas mid-debating some mob or other. And I don't think he had a chanter that time.

Psh.

Sometimes I do well, sometimes I don't.

Out of the Acknor experience, my biggest concerns were:

1) Heavy ego drain associated with offense...it felt slightly better for some reason, but I was being cautious to back away from bad situations.

2) The effects of being 'locked in debate' with someone. What happened is that I would debate someone to prevent them from diverting a denizen, they would leave, another diverter would come in and take over, and I would have to sit there while they diverted away until my original debate expired before I could start with them. As soon as I did, they switched out for the original person and the process repeated. Annoyance!

I can't really think of a good fix for that last, it may well be as things are intended...but oh, so annoying.

I didn't think it did that. But what was described before (with having to enter the command before you get the message) relates to network lag. There is a delay before you see the notice that you have equilibrium, and there is a second delay for your next command to go to the server. This applies to combat, not just influence, but being able to send your command slightly before you see notice that you can will speed your up a good bit. I used to be huge on bashing and got a reflex (real reflex, not a trigger) down to time it just right regardless of what the text said on my screen. I was able to bash things a little stronger than others by getting in an extra strike or two before the NPC could get his final killing blow.

I would just like to add how utterly frustrating debating is.

It is thoroughly useless. A game of luck.

And as I just discovered, divert is FAR worse than sanctuary. >_<

I have fixed the formulae to be zero sum, as it was originally supposed to be.

What exactly has changed to reach that point, Roark? Offensive losses will hurt less?

Sorry, I don't remember. I coded the change a week ago but haven't commited due to having tons of unfinished stuff pending. So I forget the precise details of how the numbers were toggled. I *think* losses and ties were adjusted, but not wins, though don't hold me to that.

Ah, sounds good to me.