There was just a raid on Faethorn yesterday.

By raid, you mean "A number of complaints over CT about Kalodan having his demesne activated attacking a number of people in Faethorn who are allowed to wander through at this time, and about 5 minutes later, dying to Kaervas," right? 0 fae were brought to the drums... maybe Kaervas killed a couple and brought them to Nil?

Can't say I know exactly why Kaervas was on Ethereal. Maybe he went there to raid, maybe he heard Kalodan was screwing around, maybe he was passing through and got hit. *shrug*

Actually, it starts with Telira. That incident was resolved without violence, though it was awfully close, and there were about a dozen people ready to fight. If the immediately following incident with Kaervas killing someone and tainting Faethorn was related or not, I don't see why that doesn't constitute a "raid" to you. Maybe you only heard "complaints over CT" -- some of us were fighting.

For the record, Telira is allowed to pass through Faethorn, and that's all Kalodan was doing, trying to get her to pass through Faethorn. She was looking for a fight and looking to bring other people into it. Don't get me wrong; Kalodan was far from an angel in this. But he didn't "start it" as you seem to have been led to believe. Telira would have picked a fight with whoever had come along first; she was there before Kalodan even arrived, in fact, as I noticed after reviewing my logs.

Telira was standing there, refusing to move. And when he told her to move, she refused. She told him the only way she'd leave the Faethorn was if he chased her off - then dared her to attack him. So he melded. And then he attacked her, with his demesne.

For the record, the treaty grants safe passage to non-Wilde enemies. Not safe loitering and picking fights for non-Wilde enemies. Sorry, kthnx. It's Moon's Faethorn, and ya'll (Both Ethelon and Marsu) kept ducking in and out through my demesne.

Heh, for the record both Ethelon and myself only came up because Telira said she was being attacked over the commune aetherwave although I will pass through Faethorn as an enemy or not, its my only access to any of the other planes and I'll be damned if people like you think that you are going to stop me.

Honestly, you both have gems. And I don't meld unless there's an instance like that (She cried attack well before you came, I was melding the area.) I returned to her AFTER I finished melding, saw you enter my demesne, told her she should leave and turned it on. She's just... need cheese to go with her whine, it seems.

Um apparently this topic got sidetracked somewhere, but here's my "middle ground" idea for village influencing:

Take a step back. You're the leader of a village, and you decide that you don't like your overlord organization anymore. It comes as no suprise to you that representatives from many organizations who want your resources show up to try to convince you to join your side. Suddenly, because they all want you so badly, they start killing each other, and a massive battle erupts in your village. One side (Magnagora?) emerges victorious. Covered in the blood of their fallen enemies and comrades, they ask you to join their side, because clearly they can kill everyone else.

The "Some villages peaceful, some not" idea makes sense because some villages (Acknor?) would be like "Wow. Maggies powerful. They protect us from other bad people. We want join your side" or whatever, but the peaceful furrikin in Estlebar might be more persuaded by peaceful influencers who talk of creating a more peaceful existance in the village and mutual prosperity.

Rather than have fighting impossible in certain "peaceful" villages when they're in play (the "mothering function" option), I would have it like this:

In villages that would be more prone to peaceful influencing, make each kill perpatrated in the village by a member of an organization harm the standing of that organization. Make peaceful influencing more effective, including comm quests etc.

In villages that are more "violent" by nature or more focused on protection, make the reverse true, or leave it like it is.

This idea makes RL sense and I think would provide a sensible middle ground that would help sort out this issue.

Just my 2 cents

So if I'm trying to influence, and someone attacks me, and I kill them, the villagers are going to pissed at me and not be as swayed by my influencing? Woot...

Ack, didn't think about that. Hmm...

Maybe it would work by declarations. If someone declares on you and then you kill them, it wouldn't count against you, like with the pk/suspect system.

EDIT: That is, you would only lose influence points for a kill that would normally get you suspect.

So if someone is attacking the mob I'm trying to influence and I have to stop to kill them, when it comes back it's worse off for both of us? Awesome...

Okay okay, refining idea further...

You can freely kill enemies of any village without penalty, and in "violent" villages it helps you even more.

So if I'm in a peaceful village, then, it behooves me to be as violent as possible against enemies of that village because there's no punishment for it, yet those who aren't enemied are going to be sitting in sanctuaries influencing anyways, so I can't kill them even if I were so inclined. This is different than currently...how?

Because it prevents large scale conflict in peaceful villages. Anyone who says there aren't wars over in play villages is kidding themselves. If only enemies are fair game instead of everyone, and killing non enemies who didn't attack you first hurts you, wars are prevented.

Thus, the only armed conflict in in-play peaceful villages is between people trying to defend villagers from attacking village enemies. If you like, have someone who dies after declaring and attacking a non-enemy also lose points for their org because they caused the violence.

Ultimately, the "point" is to keep things realistic and discourage conflict in peaceful villages at the same time, and I think my idea does that.

Thanks for the feedback though, its been helpful in developing it.

I don't really like this idea, though the reasons are mostly personal.

Influencing without at least the threat and possibility of combat to me is BOOORING. Why would I want to bother with that? (other than obvious things like 'helping city == good'). A significant portion of the playerbase likes the combatative side (remember to ADD the 'just fix bugs' and 'fix demenses please' totals when looking at who likes it basically like it is, with no more pacifism than already exists).

On top of that, it gets a little hazy and less IC I think when you consider what the influence attacks of ours are. I don't really know the non-Magnagoran ones, but ours are at least partially based on things like telling them what we do to people who don't cooperate. If villagers are going to get pissy over people fighting in their villages, why would they respond to threats? If we make raiding really hard (like it is now) AND peace villages, we're literally just issuing empty threats, too, since all ways of actually doing said butt-kicking is mechanically removed (and for no real reason).

I DO think that a 'combat lowers your esteem' system is better than a 'some villages are just totally peaced' solution, which is artificial, nonsensical and...BOOORING.

Non-combatants get their cake in the status quo. You have sanctuary. We can't do anything to you in sanctuary, can't make you move or drop it, and as of now you can do it in any room, denizen or no, at any level of health/mana/ego (excepting, of course, dead).

Choices:
1. (60) I want a middle ground, make it peaceful sometimes.
2. (36) I like it how it is. Just fix bugs.
3. (25) Change demesnes, they really are the root cause.
4. (18) I hate violence, make it all peaceful.

60 who want it peaceful sometimes.

61 who want it basically the way it is (with combat), just working on demesnes and other bug fixes.

18 who want it always peaced.

I don't understand your numbers. On MY screen, it says that the 'I want a middle ground' vote is at 34. Even if you add 'I want a middle ground' and 'I hate violence' which aren't nearly the same, you still don't add up to the people who want it violent (as an option at least) but think that bugs/demenses need looking into.

in game referendum are the numbers he posted

I like it how it is, though I won't complain if it gets changed.

I don't want it to be turned into all peaceful, that'd be silly me thinks.

I like the idea that killing a player in a non-violent village like Delport or Estelbar makes it harder for you to win the influencing... Yes I see how that sucks if an attacker goads you into defending yourself and killing him thus screwing up your influencing... But it'd be realistic and add yet another tactic. But of course, that'd be tough to code properly, because if Magnagora helps Glomdoring, Mag does all the killing, Glom does all the influencing, the villagers would have to realize the connection for this to be fair. And seeing as we don't have a hardcoded aliance system, that won't work that well.

How about... adding a chance that a village will decide they want to go with neither side, if they realize that there's heaps of slaughtering going on right in front of their kids, just 'cause there are four greedy orgs who want more comms and power so badly?

He didn't say it was in game, and there's a lot more variance in that one number than all the others. Sorry I didn't read his mind and know that was what he meant.

I wonder if all those people who voted in game and not here (assuming they aren't just alts) would vote the same after reading this thread, or if there is a significant difference between the wants of likely forum readers and likely non-readers.