Solution for sanctuary: Make it protect everyone in that room who is loyal to the organisation that sanctuary'd, but not protect anyone else. Peaceful version of crusade.

Heh, what nonsense. That would basically mean victory for one side without doing much other than running there fast and spending 1p per person.

Not to mention have absolutely no useful effect unless 2 cities are working together and the other, who isn't loyal to the sanc'ed org, can take out the enemy....

Oh no! It sounds like it would benefit allied organizations!

I don't see how it would guarantee victory any more or less than the current system. And as for helping allied organisations, it hinders them too. The people from the non-influencing org could take out debaters, sure, but they themselves would be vulnerable.

I prefer my solution, only allow crusade/sanctuary to be activated in rooms with denizens in them that are open for influencing. And make those campaigns fade shortly after all denizens in the room have been influenced. That would get rid of all the sanctuary abuses like sanctuary key points to make demesnes unbreakable. And using it to stop a battle in its tracks, as soon as the flow of the battle starts to go against your side.

How does that system work for mobile Mobiles, Daevos?

It fades, a few seconds after they leave the room. But preferably they would stop denizens from moving once you start influencing them.

Wouldn't that be a nice boon to everyone.. I like that idea.

That's because combat shouldn't be as much of a part of the influencing system as it is, and you keep wanting it to be that way because you can win easier that way. If it's going to bother you that much, have it so you're able to break demesnes at sanctuaries, just no OTHER aggressive action. But demesnes shouldn't be as important as they are! Stop trying to make the problem worse! And no, debating shouldn't be able to beat sanctuary. I'm hearing a lot of bias here from the team with the best military organisation and membership. Sanctuary helps everyone equally -as far as influencing goes.-

Combat should be an important part of village influencing, because it is a far better system than the debating or influencing system in terms of balance and complexity.

Far better system for who? Combatants. It is not a far better system for people who seek to be pacifists, which is supposedly the entire point of influencing.

I thought I coded it to be zero-sum when players were identical. Hmmm...

Being one of the people who use sanctuary like that to save their ass, I would sort of miss it...

...but that would fix all the campaigning problems I'm aware of. Not to mention curbing the annoying habit things have of simply walking off when you're in the heat of a furious persuasive battle with them.

I agree with sanctuary not protecting against force-whatever or illusion dispelling. But if you don't want someone putting up a sanctuary in the middle of a battle, put up a crusade first. Welcome to Village Influencing 101.

Maybe I missed something in the influencing earlier today, but I only remember us doing that once, and frankly I thought that we proved the technique to be largely a failure. Though after an eight-hour bundle of misery, a lot of other people still swear by it. I guess they figure we just didn't do it right. Only time will tell.

It worked well enough in Southgard. I didn't find out until later but apparently I was sat sanctuaried at the spot where Revan needed to break Luxis' (inactive) demesne the whole time. No wonder he was so desperate to get me to move.

nejii,

bias from the organization with the best military in game? They're already offering to play your debating game, but the problem there is debating doesnt work very well and has very little impact.

Also, your argument against Jadryga works the other way too you know. You dont want it that way because you cant win easier if it was so... you could even extend it to you just dont want it changed because you dont want to work towards training your army so that it could be on par. Instead of working hard towards your communes development so it would be an effective force youd rather take the easy route and just get as much cr3s(through allying) and just dump them on specific spots negating the hard work done by another organization to be where it is now. Anyway point is I can say you're biased as much as you can say Jad and anybody else here is biased.

Lastly, saying sanc helps everybody here equally is being shortsighted. It doesnt because it forces the influencing organization to play the "who has the most influencers" game. Having to face a superior number is tough enough but having no way to effectively reduce the numbers of the opposing team, just makes it an inevitable losing battle. Thats what sanc does, it makes it impossible to reduce the numbers of a numerically superior force... that in my opinion is not affecting everybody equally.

I suppose you're right about the bias thing, although I'm fairly sure I'd feel the same way as a Magnagoran. (Of course, who knows?) Bad mood. Sorry.

Anyway, the thing is, with debating altered, you would STILL be able to reduce the numbers of a numerically superior force. Keep in mind that two sides SHOULD be able to beat one side when allied. But Glomdoring wasn't low in number either, ganging up in Magnagora as it was. Think of it as sanctuary reducing the combat effectiveness of a militarily (pretend that's a word) superior army. Without it, it couldn't be done, and that doesn't affect everyone equally. So if you call it imbalanced, keep in mind that it's imbalanced in favour of influencing numbers rather than military strength, which is what it's supposed to be, and therefore fine.

EDIT: Edited for stupid mistakes. Or, uh, some of them. :/

Isn't that what influencing should be about? Who has the most/best influencers? You -can- eliminate people from opposing teams via debate (once it works properly), and it is for much longer than the time a victim takes to conglutinate.

I don't like the amount of combat we have in village influencing at the moment, but I understand some people like that so it doesn't have to change. Sanctuaries are fine, just set up crusades to prevent them.

My point actually was, that I doubt influencing was meant to be won on who gets there the fastest and has enough people to spend 1 measly p to sanc (well, you never know, but I don't think so). Crusade is breakable, sanc isn't. At all. There is absolutely NO way to break sanc at the moment.

Besides, I'm not suggesting anything that isn't already doable. In sanc, the only thing you can do, is debate. I'm not saying allow sanc'ers to be tackled, or barged or whatever, just to...

1. Let offensive debating have more use - as Melanchthon said right now, offensive debating is a joke. Defensive debaters can win by just shuffling mindsets. There's no incentive to start debates in sanctuary, unless the person is an influencer, and is currently being distracted by a mob, and having their ego drained from there too. More often than not, they're moving about influencing, or running away from debaters to avoid potential burnout.

2. Let there be a way to drop sanc, albeit temporarily. After all, with the 1p sanc cost, there is practically no power regen cost. And, if you manage to put sanc back up in time after you're burnt out, that's 10 minutes of pure, uninterrupted time you get to sit in your little sanc'ed spot because no one can debate you anymore.

3. Let influencing be more than a battle of who's fastest, and who's got the most people who can sanc. Nej, you say it's a failure, because you didn't get the villages fast, but to be realistic, those who have used the tactics have not lost any villages yet (unless there's something I'm missing). Mostly because we didn't have a way to break sanc, compounded by us not having the sheer number of people who can influence needed to stake out the key mobs which you people have conveniently sanc'ed. 'Sides, it was only that one time that you sat in a key spot for us. I've been idea'ing and bugging for sanc to be breakable for ages. Glomdoring had 3 influencers out of less than 10 total people in Southgard, and later on had... 4.

1. Right. So change debating, not sanctuary. But even so, it's like - sanctuary should be the default, if nothing else, and you're given the chance to pre-empt it with campaign. You shouldn't be able to kill things in a village by default, really, since it's not supposed to be about war, it's about influencing. IF you had no other options, but sure, just debate all the influencers. If you're numerically outnumbered by influencers...well, then you are, aren't you? You've never counted lack of numbers in terms of battle as a valid argument, so why would lack of numbers in influencing be?

2. No, because then you get killed by the huge group of Magnagorans there, making it rather pointless. And...yeah, you shouldn't be able to drop it.

3. I didn't say it was a failure actually, I think you're looking at Gwylifar's post. And if they want to take on a bigger influencing team (Celest), they should get more influencers. Not just get Magnagora in to kill them.

Anyway, the point is, if you fix debating, there are no more valid arguments left for killing sanctuary.