Offensive Debating...

by Melanchthon

Back to Common Grounds.

Jadryga2005-06-25 09:00:32
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jun 25 2005, 04:16 PM)
Look, are you saying debating needs to be changed, OR sanctuary needs to be changed? You can't bring up an example of how debating is now as an argument for sanctuary needing changing, because I think debating should be changed too.
144429



Silleh, we're asking for debating to be changed, so debating offensively has more of a use, giving it a higher chance of burning out your opponent, subsequently breaking sanc, if the person burnt out was the one holding sanc. That way, sanc is more diverse, and people actually have to put an effort into holding sanc, instead of just sitting there.

Side note, I just lost a debate in Paavik. I was purely offensive, and Nok was chanting for me. All Ekard did was shuffle mindsets. Debating offensively is much harder than debating defensively.

Sanc'ers got it good. They get CR3, they use 1p so they get to sit invincibly in one spot during influencing, then, to take enemy influencers out, they just either have to shuffle mindsets, or attack em while they're trying to influence so the mob does most of the actual damage.
Shiri2005-06-25 09:14:35
QUOTE(Jadryga @ Jun 25 2005, 10:00 AM)
Silleh, we're asking for debating to be changed, so debating offensively has more of a use, giving it a higher chance of burning out your opponent, subsequently breaking sanc, if the person burnt out was the one holding sanc. That way, sanc is more diverse, and people actually have to put an effort into holding sanc, instead of just sitting there.

Side note, I just lost a debate in Paavik. I was purely offensive, and Nok was chanting for me. All Ekard did was shuffle mindsets. Debating offensively is much harder than debating defensively.

Sanc'ers got it good. They get CR3, they use 1p so they get to sit invincibly in one spot during influencing, then, to take enemy influencers out, they just either have to shuffle mindsets, or attack em while they're trying to influence so the mob does most of the actual damage.
144438



Gaah. You just said debating needs to be changed, then used the OLD debating as a justification for changing sanc! You can't do that! Stoppit! Make your mind up.
Nokraenom2005-06-25 09:23:06
It was pretty neat to be burnt out by Elaria after debating her 4 times, 2 of which I won, and 2 of which I lost. I had full ego. Something needs to be changed so that offensive debating is the stronger of the tactics.
Jadryga2005-06-25 09:40:58
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jun 25 2005, 05:14 PM)
Gaah. You just said debating needs to be changed, then used the OLD debating as a justification for changing sanc! You can't do that! Stoppit! Make your mind up.
144442



Old debating is the justification for changing debating. Sanc also needs to be changed, but I'm tying both together, by suggesting that debating be changed, for offensive debaters to have more of a chance, and a possibility of breaking sanc, which would yes, change sanc in the process.
Shiri2005-06-25 09:47:04
QUOTE(Jadryga @ Jun 25 2005, 10:40 AM)
Old debating is the justification for changing debating. Sanc also needs to be changed, but I'm tying both together, by suggesting that debating be changed, for offensive debaters to have more of a chance, and a possibility of breaking sanc, which would yes, change sanc in the process.
144449



Then stop trying to use defensive debating being superior as an argument for changing sanctuary, which you do by trying to use it as a reason, e.g here.

QUOTE(Jadryga)
Sanc'ers got it good. They get CR3, they use 1p so they get to sit invincibly in one spot during influencing, then, to take enemy influencers out, they just either have to shuffle mindsets, or attack em while they're trying to influence so the mob does most of the actual damage.


Debating needs to be changed, sanctuary doesn't, so don't confuse the two issues. tongue.gif
Jadryga2005-06-25 09:57:02
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jun 25 2005, 05:47 PM)
Then stop trying to use defensive debating being superior as an argument for changing sanctuary, which you do by trying to use it as a reason, e.g here.

Debating needs to be changed, sanctuary doesn't, so don't confuse the two issues. tongue.gif
144450



Not confusing them.

Defensive debating isn't my point for changing sanc at all. Defensive debating is the point used for changing debating itself. Offensive debaters are at a distinct disadvantage, unless the defensive debater happens to be getting pounded by a mob at the same time. Even then the defensive debater can just run.

Debating as a whole, whether it's changed or not, should be able to be used to break sanc, like winning a battle would break crusade. Sanc does need to be changed, it's currently unbreakable in any way except if the fellow decides to move. I understand why you'd fight so hard for it not to be changed. Like I said, sanc'ers got it good. Explained all the reasons why. Sanc'ers have a chance to break crusade, crusaders don't have a chance to break sanc.

Two different points, which I'm tying together. I'm not using one to justify the other.
Shiri2005-06-25 10:04:28
QUOTE(Jadryga @ Jun 25 2005, 10:57 AM)
Not confusing them.

Defensive debating isn't my point for changing sanc at all. Defensive debating is the point used for changing debating itself. Offensive debaters are at a distinct disadvantage, unless the defensive debater happens to be getting pounded by a mob at the same time. Even then the defensive debater can just run.

Debating as a whole, whether it's changed or not, should be able to be used to break sanc, like winning a battle would break crusade. Sanc does need to be changed, it's currently unbreakable in any way except if the fellow decides to move. I understand why you'd fight so hard for it not to be changed. Like I said, sanc'ers got it good. Explained all the reasons why. Sanc'ers have a chance to break crusade, crusaders don't have a chance to break sanc.

Two different points, which I'm tying together. I'm not using one to justify the other.
144451



Sure looked like it, but even ignoring that, sure, debating could drop sanctuary, but only if you're COMPLETELY inept and lose out while in its CURRENT form. If debating was actually capable of winning aggressively, then no it shouldn't drop sanctuary. (Explained why as well.)
Elryn2005-06-25 10:18:04
QUOTE(Jadryga @ Jun 25 2005, 07:57 PM)
Debating as a whole, whether it's changed or not, should be able to be used to break sanc, like winning a battle would break crusade. Sanc does need to be changed, it's currently unbreakable in any way except if the fellow decides to move. I understand why you'd fight so hard for it not to be changed. Like I said, sanc'ers got it good. Explained all the reasons why. Sanc'ers have a chance to break crusade, crusaders don't have a chance to break sanc.
144451


There's just no need for it, whatsoever.

Fix debating, fix demesnes, and sanctuary is fine.

Don't like that you can't force someone into combat and physical death? Tough biccies.

Work out a strategy to keep up a number of crusades where you want to fight. The options are there, use them.

Another difference between crusade and sanctuary is that physical death removes you from the situation, ego death does not. Saying that killing someone breaks the crusade is not the reason. It is that they disappear and take the crusade with them. If you vitae, does a crusade disappear? If you force someone holding a crusade out of the room, does it disappear?
Jadryga2005-06-25 10:37:33
Vitae, not sure, never tested, but it should. Forcing someone out of the room does.

You're saying it's fine for crusade to be breakable in a million different ways, but for sanctuary not to be in any way?

Like I said earlier, it's understandable that you'd argue because you don't want sanc to be breakable. Sanc'ers have it good. But to be absolutely fair, it's silly to have such benefits for so little cost when combatants have to work very hard to be able to hold their own in battle.

It's not about breaking so we can kill, stop thinking that Mags just want to KILL, KILL, KILL. We're quite stereotyped, I think.

It's the fact that sanctuary is not breakable, whether to kill, or crusade, or demesne, or put up our own sanc. Even if force-terrain and whatever else go through, it doesn't change the fact that YOU are the one sancing that spot, so the minute we leave, you can call in the mages and start breaking our demesne systemically. It would just be a demesne war and no one would get anywhere because there isn't a way for the breaking mages to protect their edges.

Step back and look at it for heaven's sake, and stop saying "Oh, you just want to kill us, that's why you're saying it needs to be changed."

And I've said earlier, physical death removes you from the situation but also cures shattered ego. Liching doesn't, by the way. I liched earlier, and came back with a shattered ego still. So those who conglute, can jump back in right after deffing.
Jadryga2005-06-25 10:48:24
Dinner time cookie.gif
Unknown2005-06-25 10:53:23
Crusade buffs crusaders.

Sanctuary makes it an even playing field for everyone.

I would say that is why sanctuary is less easy to break.
Rhysus2005-06-25 10:57:24
QUOTE(Quidgyboo @ Jun 25 2005, 06:53 AM)
Crusade buffs crusaders.

Sanctuary makes it an even playing field for everyone.

I would say that is why sanctuary is less easy to break.
144464



Yes, we've been saying that all thread, it's not worth arguing with Jadryga at this point, her logic amounts to "but we want it this way so change it." You're just not going to get a good argument out of someone when they can't see the forest for the trees.
Unknown2005-06-25 11:43:46
3396h, 3582m, 3828e, 8p, 15880en elrxk-debate xenthos with pettifoggery
You unscrupulously quibble about the smallest points in your argument, bringing
up esoteric minutiae to support your theories. Xenthos laughs in your face and
counters every point you raise with facts of arcane trivia that deflates your
entire dissertation.
The stress of this debate is too much! You throw up your hands up in
exasperation and curse loudly, losing face in front of your peers.
After a long pause in you and your interlocutor's dialectic, you lose interest
in the debate and let your mind drift to other things.
3396h, 3582m, 0e, 8p, 15880en lrxk-

You kid me, right? I was at full ego, he just stood there while I played around. The more I messed up, the more I lost on each screwed up debate, but still.. full ego to nothing is a bit messed up.
Jadryga2005-06-25 13:54:32
QUOTE(Rhysus @ Jun 25 2005, 06:57 PM)
Yes, we've been saying that all thread, it's not worth arguing with Jadryga at this point, her logic amounts to "but we want it this way so change it." You're just not going to get a good argument out of someone when they can't see the forest for the trees.
144465



*sighs*

I give up. It's useless arguing with a bunch of pacifists who can't see that peace is NOT a benefit to those who don't want to be peaceful.

Benefit is subjective. It makes it even playing ground for pacifists, it does not make it even playing ground for combatants. It forces combatants to play on pacifist terms: debating instead of fighting. I don't understand why everyone seems to bypass that simple point, and claim that sanc benefits everyone.

Benefit is SUBJECTIVE.

I'll say it again. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Those who want to hold territory believe forced peace is good. Those who need to take it, do not. If there was an alternative to gaining territory in a peaceful manner, sure. But there isn't.

Not all combatants are good at debating. If they are, it's because they learnt. Just like not all debaters are good at fighting. If they are, it's also cos they learnt.

We're not asking for the whole thing to be a bloodbath, we're asking for an equal chance for combat as debating. But then again, I'm arguing with a bunch of pacifists who enjoy being indefinitely invincible for 1p.

I can say the exact same thing back to you, Rhysus. Your logic, to me, amounts to "but we like it that way, so leave it". As far as I'm concerned you're looking at the blasted weevils crawling up the trunks. It's all about points of view. Ours differ, that's all. No need to belittle me.

And yes, Raf, that's what we were referring to. You spend all that trouble debating, and the defender shuffles mindsets, and annihilates you without blinking.
Jadryga2005-06-25 14:00:26
QUOTE(Quidgyboo @ Jun 25 2005, 06:53 PM)
Crusade buffs crusaders.

Sanctuary makes it an even playing field for everyone.

I would say that is why sanctuary is less easy to break.
144464



It's not less easy.

It's impossible.

Tell me a way to break sanctuary from the outside, and I'll say it's less easy.

Make breaking sanc hard, if you like. Maybe something like burning out only gives a 30% chance of breaking sanc or something. But right now, it's not hard, it's impossible.
Narsrim2005-06-25 14:05:10
QUOTE(Jadryga @ Jun 25 2005, 04:40 AM)
So you killed innocents who were defending their turf, since they saw you as a threat, not surprising since you were trying to kill the guards who were supposed to protect the village, when you could have run, and left them to live?
144435



What's your deal? You more or less have said over and over that Magnagora has this "big rp reason" to kill villager but they have in fact never role played it. You have no defense this other than trying to change the subject and cover up your meta-gaming (typical, very typical).

And yes, Narsrim feels that if someone is going to try and kill him, he has the right to defend himself.
Jadryga2005-06-25 14:14:12
*sighs* I'm saying that just about everything done in-game can be justified with some sort of RP reason, some flimsy, some secure.

THAT was my point. I wasn't covering up. We've never RP'ed it, yes, but neither has Serenwilde ever RP'ed any anguish over slain denizens. At least, if they have, I don't think Mag has ever seen it. Same way, if Mag RPs something, Serenwilde would not necessarily be aware of it. Easy to come to the conclusion that the other side doesn't RP it.
Anumi2005-06-25 14:17:38
Just throwing out random ideas here, this is my first real experience with influencing.

Maybe limit the amount that people can Sanctuary? Say, each person can only throw out one sanctuary, or 10, or some number computed based on something. But a limit.

This prevents someone from jumping into combat, sanc-ing when things get hairy, attacking again when they're ready to go, re-sancing when they want to.

There does need to be some way to lower sanctuary as well. The idea about being able to break demesne that are under sanc is a good one.

Maybe declaring a sanctuary requires full health/mana? So it's not a "get out of combat free" card. Though you can just truck along some CR3 non-combatant to declare it for you if you get hurt. I dunno.
Gwylifar2005-06-25 14:17:45
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jun 25 2005, 05:14 AM)
Gaah. You just said debating needs to be changed, then used the OLD debating as a justification for changing sanc! You can't do that! Stoppit! Make your mind up.
144442



And the pedantic mindset triumphs again over passion! biggrin.gif

Here's a compromise. If someone breaks the ego of the person holding sanctuary, the sanctuary is broken, and that person gets ten minutes of grace. So people who don't want to fight can still participate, but sanctuary is breakable. I don't like this, mind you, but it's a compromise against the sanctuary-nerfing being proposed.
Sylphas2005-06-25 14:22:28
You want a way to slaughter people. I can understand that, Magnagoran combatants have it good. Village influencing, however, is supposed to be about INFLUENCING, not combat. Combat is just there as an extra. Why do you think the Gods even added sanctuary?