Nejii...

PK is the violent way of settling things. If someone combat-inept and undeffed wanted to duel they'd probably die.

Debating is the peaceful way of settling things. If someone debating-inept and unprepared (rank, clothes) wanted to debate they'd probably lose.

If a person wants to crusade, he or she had better be able to hold his or her own in combat, at least until help arrives or so and so will be killed, and crusade broken.

So, if the person wants to sanc, the person should be able to hold his or her own in debating, at least until help arrives, and not just be able to sanc indefinitely and unbreakably because so and so has CR3 and 1p.

If you want to be a pacifist, at least be an effective one who can DO something, on pacifist terms, mind you, rather than function as a passive doorstop and umbrella. If you're combat AND influence inept, well, you SHOULD lose.

I don't see why they should be allowed to win if they don't put the effort needed to prepare for it and KEEP it.

Why do you fail to address the fact that Sanctuaries equally aide both sides regardless who puts it up, whereas Crusades only aide the side that put it up themselves? This is a crucial balancing factor. My having a sanctuary up does nothing to help me influence that it doesn't also help you to do. The only thing I -can- do is to choose to leave and drop it, but that's entirely the type of thing I'm trying to avoid by having it up in the first place. Your arguments are entirely flawed without taking this obvious point into serious consideration.

Because, Rhysus, if one side's intention is to settle things through combat, sanctuary is a hindrance to that side, NOT an aid.

Then learn to deal with both sides, just as everyone else does. Your desire for only combative influencing no more trumps the desire of others for passive influencing than the reverse. And there are ways for you to keep up a Crusade indefinitely, but guess what they require? More -combat- tactics.

We're asking for an effective way of dealing with both sides, in case you missed the point.

There is an effective way of dealing with crusade.

There is no effective way of dealing with sanctuary.

Crusade requires combat tactics, as you said. So why should sanctuary not require any tactics?

But see, if you want to sanc, they should be able to hold their own in debating, you say. If they lose, they can't influence. This is all well and good, but you fail to address that if they lose they die AS WELL. So they would get both penalties for losing sanc. THAT would be unbalanced.

And it wouldn't be a case of simply being influence inept, because you're advocating the change of debates to make offensive debating worthwhile. That means laetitia and so forth has an effect.

You're missing, my point.

Crusade requires particular tactics because it is of benefit to one side specifically.

Sanctuary does not require the same degree of tactics because it benefits everyone equally.

It's already balanced by the fact that it in no way hurts you to go into a Sanctuary held by someone outside your city. If it somehow affected you adversely, I would agree with you. As it does not, I cannot.

What the bleep are you talking about? Did you read what I said? I specifically stated that I did not need both, and I was also saying that I believe that is the way it should be, based on the previous conversation saying that named denizens did massive ego attacks that drained one quickly.

Maybe it's just easier to rant than read.

Refer to last post that answered to Morik.

Backup.

At least, until a better debater arrives.

When you burn out, sanc breaks, but if you're smart, you'd have called for backup, so they can sanc immediately, which buys you time

1) to regain equilibrium while they're being debated and hightail it out of there if needed.

or

2) for a better debater to get there and sanc, then debate the offensive debater.

Death is not necessarily a penalty, unless you're silly enough to

1) not call for backup. Works the same way for combat.
2) be really unprepared for debates.

Debate is designed to work one on one. The sanc'er only has to deal with one at a time. Crusaders have the potential to be slammed into oblivion by 4-5 people at once.

Of course Laetitia should have an effect, it's not there for cosmetics.

Serenwilde has no laetitia, true. But they have that sparkly moonlight room thing, which affects ALL Serens in the room, beauty, bromide, sparkleberry, and the potential to receive Laetitia from Paladin and Celestine allies.

We don't have the sparkly thing, and laetitia-ing ourselves means we can't debate offensively. We walk around with chanters, of course, but that's tactics, not skills. Sides, with the new changes, more than one chanter is useless.

"Benefit" is a subjective word. Bear in mind what you consider a benefit may not be considered such by others.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

It does not hurt us, true, but it does not benefit our cause either. If we are prepared to die, it affects our cause adversely, while benefiting the other party's cause.

And with conglutination in villages, it's not like it really hurts the experience much. Which is a really nice touch.

I didn't have any problems running straight back into the fight to try again, even though your lovely seren/celest squad kept chasing me. It took me longer to recover from the one shattered ego that Vis gave me, than those three deaths put together

Edit: No thanks, Jadryga, don't need a cookie. And didn't feel like making a new post.

I'm going to eat lunch while Nejii types

Just as a note, the sparkly thing regens 50 ego per 10 seconds.

Right, I'll do the same thing you suggested to show the imbalance.

Crusade - Gives an emphasis to combat, aides one side, and if they lose it, they die.

Sanctuary - Gives an emphasis to debating, aides all sides, and if they lose it...they die. Nope, no influence-related losses here.

That's imbalanced.

EDIT: By the way, there's also a power cost associated with dying so that you're actually able to do anything again, which Moondancers, Nihilists, Shadowdancers and Celestines all feel the most, the latter more so.

EDIT2: Sorry for the delay Jad, was explaining Astrology for like the 50th time.

Do you honestly believe influence is the non-violent parallel of combat? Are they balanced?

Of course not.

And no-one has said why an ego-shattered person sitting doing nothing in a sanctuary is benefiting their organization over yours. There is no need whatsoever to change, as Rhysus has said.

And Morik is exactly right about what would happen if you could systematically take down sanctuaries. They would become useless.

You don't really need to use power to influence, though, just if you plan on fighting back (which gives warriors a bit of an advantage I guess, we don't NEED to spend power to defend ourselves, can just head straight back into the fray).

Also, your "if they drop Crusade they die" isn't really accurate. It's more "If they die, they lose Crusade." Which, well, I suppose would be true for someone in a sanctuary, if they picked up crotamine or heavy wounds before the sanctuary went up and didn't bother to cure, but I think that is the "imbalance" that's being discussed.

Edit: The real difference I see is, if you have 10 low levels with Crusade go in and pin the named, with the influencing team wandering around... all the other side has to do is walk in, kill the low levels, and sanctuary. Tada, crusade has been nulled. Crusade allows for combat, so they can die to combat.

Now, sanctuary allows for influencing... yet remains even if defeated by influencing. Making it extremely easy to break a crusade, yet impossible to touch a sanctuary.

Err... Xenthos is right, you know.

You die or are forced to run in order for crusade to be broken. There is a chance of maintaining crusade, but it is significantly smaller than the chance to maintain sanctuary.

IF sanc is broken, then you have a CHANCE of dying. Refer to previous posts for non-dying tactics.

Also, Nej, you're implying that once sanc is broken the sanc'er is not going to do anything except sit there and die.

Sanctuary aids only the side who wants to be peaceful. It does NOT aid the side which wants to fight. Perhaps protection from violence is a boon to you, but it's not a boon to the crusader. I think that is a biased perception of "benefit".

AND, if that sparkly thing gave a roomful of Serens passive ego regen that rivalled the amount given by Laetitia, I'd be screaming overpowered. It's passive, it's a room effect, and it stacks with beauty, bromide and potential Laetitia from Celestine or Paladin allies.

Jadryga, Crusade is also a boon to the fighter and not to the one who wants to be a pacifist. In that way, they ARE balanced... they're supposed to be like that.

It's just the way they last that needs looking into, I think. Perhaps if crusade could be done only in a room with a named denizen... being a certain number of rooms away from another crusade (2? 5? 8, 10?), allowing *some* rooms to be open to combat entirely as long as someone remembers to check them, and the rest to be peaceful? Or maybe leave crusade how it is, and add a 5/10 power skill to do that?

hm, yet another edit here: Or if some denizens preferred peaceful persuasion, and some others enjoyed seeing combat, making those rooms automatically sanctuary/crusaded, while the rest are free for whatever?

Elryn, while I'm all for the idea of pacifists pitching in for the city/commune, I am not thrilled by the fact that they do not need much preparation or skill to do so, unlike combatants, who require a lot of preparation and AT LEAST adequate skills and tactics.

Killing denizens influenced by other factions is a tactic. Just like farhealing enemies' blindness from sanc so dazzle goes through is a tactic. Or like sitting on a key demesne spot while invincible and immovable due to sanc is a tactic. Sitting at a key mob while sanc'ed, even if you're burnt out...

1) Makes you a great passive doorstop. Like Nejii was, when we needed to break the demesne in Southgard.

2) Makes you a pretty umbrella for denizens. Killing enemy-influenced denizens, while not a very savory tactic, gives the losing side a minor chance of prolonging the revolt, allowing them a fighting chance to try and get that denizen when it pops. Both sides have equal chance of getting the denizen when it does.

3) Still gives you quasi-invincibility for the great price of 1p and CR3.

Sanctuaries would not become useless. They would still protect influencers and denizens. The only difference is it would not be absolutely indestructible/impermeable/invincible/unbreakable. We're asking for a tiny chance for it to be brought down. It can always be automatically put back up by as I have repeated countless times, BACKUP.

And it would still cost 1p.

Yes, they were saying Crusade aids one side, while Sanc aids both.

I was merely pointing out that Sanc may not be a blessing for both, because if one side wants to fight, it's hindering them, not aiding them, and only aiding the pacifist side.

That's an interesting idea, Xenthos, but I think it's a little odd, since a lot of key mobs are in dead-end rooms.

You're right about preparation. I would like debate to be at least a Master level influence skill, and have it weighted far more heavily on influence skill, appearance, and definitely charisma. I would like to have influence means of afflicting enemies with influence-hindering symptoms, that have particular cures that need to be studied and learned. I would like influence itself to be able to be used on other characters.

As far as your points go:

1) I think -everyone- is agreeing this should be changed. Sanctuary should not be able to be used in this fashion at all. Thus, making sanctuary breakable doesn't stop a determined opponent from continuing to abuse it. Making force-environment/realitycheck work in sanctuary solves the problem without creating any new ones or imbalances.

2) Killing the denizen does nothing to aide an influence effort. If they're influenced, they stay influenced for the period they are dead, as far as I know. Both sides have an equal chance of grabbing the denizen when they are ready to be influenced if it is sanctuaried. They do -not- have the same chance if it is not sanctuaried because the first ones on the scene can set up demesne effects, walls, blockages, hexes, etc.

3) You are -not- invincible at all. Debate them out, and they are removed from the influence effort. Same as if you were killed, but for FAR FAR longer.