Cwin2005-12-24 00:19:22
Alright alright. Scrap the idea. It IS too much coding on something that doesn't realy need an overhaul anyway.
As for the 'too much now too little' complaint, Lusternia tends to adopt the 'extreme' approach to fixing things, as stated by some of the Powers that Be in other threads. Essentualy, if something is too much on one side, it's easier and causes less complaints to make it work the other extreme and, later, tweak it to a happy medium than it is to try to weak it as it's broken.
It's an odd concept to me but, seeing how some of the changes have gone through, it's actualy effective (I use Faethorn as the #1 example here and note the lack of complaints there are now. It'll probably get retweaked to allow more combat but right now it's actualy tolerable now compared to before).
As such, while the villages used to revolt VERY oftain before, they've been made to revolt very little (I've seen several weeks without a revolt now). The old was too much, now is too little. Of course, this way is complained about MUCH less so instead of the Divine having to rushbuild a fix they can get to fixing the other 1000 of things that need to be done (i.e. note that they fixed the dreaded 'phanom arm' bug) and, afterwards, start tweaking the villages until they work.
So I'll just join the crowd and say "We just need villages revolting a little more" and then turn to more critical matters, like perhaps the gorgog quest or perhaps finally writing up something in Plots and RPing some way to bring about the Firestorm quest.
As for the 'too much now too little' complaint, Lusternia tends to adopt the 'extreme' approach to fixing things, as stated by some of the Powers that Be in other threads. Essentualy, if something is too much on one side, it's easier and causes less complaints to make it work the other extreme and, later, tweak it to a happy medium than it is to try to weak it as it's broken.
It's an odd concept to me but, seeing how some of the changes have gone through, it's actualy effective (I use Faethorn as the #1 example here and note the lack of complaints there are now. It'll probably get retweaked to allow more combat but right now it's actualy tolerable now compared to before).
As such, while the villages used to revolt VERY oftain before, they've been made to revolt very little (I've seen several weeks without a revolt now). The old was too much, now is too little. Of course, this way is complained about MUCH less so instead of the Divine having to rushbuild a fix they can get to fixing the other 1000 of things that need to be done (i.e. note that they fixed the dreaded 'phanom arm' bug) and, afterwards, start tweaking the villages until they work.
So I'll just join the crowd and say "We just need villages revolting a little more" and then turn to more critical matters, like perhaps the gorgog quest or perhaps finally writing up something in Plots and RPing some way to bring about the Firestorm quest.
Shiri2005-12-24 00:21:50
As Cwin says, this is completely -not- a permanent warzone. Because there's 8 of them, in neutral territory, and people aren't obliged to protect them. Absolutely nothing like Faethorn, where in an off-plane combat zone one org constantly raided another.
Of course, having Ekard's idea put in would be better imo, since then there actually -are- temporary warzones as opposed to none at all, but people complained about getting burnt out so those options were removed. This would do nothing like that.
Of course, having Ekard's idea put in would be better imo, since then there actually -are- temporary warzones as opposed to none at all, but people complained about getting burnt out so those options were removed. This would do nothing like that.
Shorlen2005-12-24 02:42:52
QUOTE(Shiri @ Dec 23 2005, 08:21 PM)
As Cwin says, this is completely -not- a permanent warzone. Because there's 8 of them, in neutral territory, and people aren't obliged to protect them. Absolutely nothing like Faethorn, where in an off-plane combat zone one org constantly raided another.
Of course, having Ekard's idea put in would be better imo, since then there actually -are- temporary warzones as opposed to none at all, but people complained about getting burnt out so those options were removed. This would do nothing like that.
Of course, having Ekard's idea put in would be better imo, since then there actually -are- temporary warzones as opposed to none at all, but people complained about getting burnt out so those options were removed. This would do nothing like that.
239619
No, it would just be boring. Why not go raid for miners and farmers? It's the same thing, isn't it? And leaves those of us who love village influencing with our village influencing. I do know several people (okay, at last one) who stopped logging into Lusternia because villages didn't revolt more often.
What really makes me sad is that there will be FIVE revolts next week.... and I'll be out of town with limited internet access Then I have to wait 1-2 months for the villages to revolt again
Shiri2005-12-24 02:58:39
QUOTE(Shorlen @ Dec 24 2005, 02:42 AM)
No, it would just be boring. Why not go raid for miners and farmers? It's the same thing, isn't it? And leaves those of us who love village influencing with our village influencing. I do know several people (okay, at last one) who stopped logging into Lusternia because villages didn't revolt more often.
What really makes me sad is that there will be FIVE revolts next week.... and I'll be out of town with limited internet access Then I have to wait 1-2 months for the villages to revolt again
What really makes me sad is that there will be FIVE revolts next week.... and I'll be out of town with limited internet access Then I have to wait 1-2 months for the villages to revolt again
239682
Because you -can't- raid for miners unless you're a top fighter or whatever. It takes a lot more effort than casual influencing.
I love village influencing too you know, but when it doesn't -happen- what's the point of having the system that just doesn't get used and leads to stagnation like we have now?