Saran2006-02-12 22:28:58
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Feb 13 2006, 07:11 AM) 257349
The longer a village revolts, the more likely a nearby village will revolt as well - If you take more than thirty minutes to take Estelbar, Angkrag revolts. This forms a cascading effect; if a whole hour goes without Acknor being taken over, Angkrag revolts. If Angkrag stays up for more than one hour and a half, Rockholm goes up, and so on. This makes sense ICly, as seeing a nearby village revolt will inspire other villages to join in. Occasionally you'd have a simultaneous revolt, in which two villages that were going to revolt almost at the same time conspire to revolt together; villages that are enemies (Rockholm and Southgard, for example) never revolt together. Of course, if a village revolt happens at a very low-traffic time, we could have four or five villages revolting together - but that would be fun, interesting, and even realistic.
No no no no no no no no no maybe no no no no.
Just yesterday we had a 3 hour long village revolt. If this were added you would have 6 villages revolting at the same time, If a village situated beside two villages under serens control all anyone would have to do it lose to a couple of the village denizens who then are uninfluencable for ages suddenly seren has lost 2-3 villages if not more.
It seems much easier to keep a revolt going than it is to stop it, you get a couple of people come in lose to the denizens and you get the chance for another village
Sylphas2006-02-12 22:32:25
QUOTE(Kashim @ Feb 12 2006, 04:11 PM) 257371
If we raid you continually, the perspective of making it stop by pledging to us should seem really good. Otherwise, you already know what happens.
On the other hand, if we leave you in peace and bring you candies from time to time, would you even believe the threats? More like think 'Eww, get lots. I don't recognize you".
You're not promising to make it stop, from what I've seen. You're threatening to actually do it. Large difference if you ARE already doing it.
Also, it can be argued that non-named denizens aren't returned to life as are players and named denizens. People that have been oppressed their whole lives, and have seen you kill theirs friends and family, are less likely to actually believe that you'd stop.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Magnagora's angle on the whole thing is easier to integrate with whatever happens, I think, then village pairs revolting.
Unknown2006-02-12 22:42:07
QUOTE(Sylphas @ Feb 12 2006, 11:32 PM) 257390
You're not promising to make it stop, from what I've seen. You're threatening to actually do it. Large difference if you ARE already doing it.
Also, it can be argued that non-named denizens aren't returned to life as are players and named denizens. People that have been oppressed their whole lives, and have seen you kill theirs friends and family, are less likely to actually believe that you'd stop.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Magnagora's angle on the whole thing is easier to integrate with whatever happens, I think, then village pairs revolting.
Not everything has to be said. There can't be such a thing like promising to stop in general influencing messages. But who raids his own village? It's quite obvious.
Shayle2006-02-12 22:48:20
What about...if quest related villages revolted at the same time because of the economical instabilty caused by their "sister" village revolting? Like Delport revolts, hemp prices skyrocket, and Jerry Wainwright freaks out inciting riots in Stewartsville... 
Unknown2006-02-12 23:05:16
QUOTE
2) This is likely to lead to a situation in which we'd all have to watch our villages like hawks and stop -every- novice or player who tries to do the comms quest or village quest. Which will be a -massive- pain for demesning guilds... and will just make life harder for all of us.
quoted for the sad but honest truth.
In theory it's a wonderful idea, if you buffed up comm quests to the point where they really would make a big differance, the younger members -could- make a big differance (and I'm sure that's where some of them feel left out, taking 10 sheep to Paavik every day for a year should count).
In reality this will make all the nations more zenophobic (at present Serenwilde useally lets peaceful youngins explore around as long as they arn't doing something fishy) but this would most likely change that, we'd want to guard our villages, people might even start killing young ones without grace, that would change to people making novices with grace to go quests, and then we'd need to enemy them. It might get messy.
Still If it wouldn't resort to that I'd love this change, it would solve Celest/Serenwilde tensions completely over villages. *le sigh*
Verithrax2006-02-12 23:58:04
QUOTE(Saran @ Feb 12 2006, 08:28 PM) 257386
No no no no no no no no no maybe no no no no.
Just yesterday we had a 3 hour long village revolt. If this were added you would have 6 villages revolting at the same time, If a village situated beside two villages under serens control all anyone would have to do it lose to a couple of the village denizens who then are uninfluencable for ages suddenly seren has lost 2-3 villages if not more.
It seems much easier to keep a revolt going than it is to stop it, you get a couple of people come in lose to the denizens and you get the chance for another village
Read my original post carefully. If you had a village up for three hours:
Village A revolts.
Half an hour later, village B revolts.
An hour later, village C revolts.
An hour and a half later, vilalge D revolts.
That's four villages, not six.Besides, the times I post are suggestions; it can be much longer than that. The point is that instead of villages revolting together suddenly for not reason, it would take some time for the rebellion to spread. It would also give people more reason to end rebellions quickly by making agreements, instead of letting everything revolt.
Unknown2006-02-13 00:18:00
I really, really like this idea (as I said in the other thread!).
I'm not sure I agree with reverse polarity villages always revolting together, though... I'd prefer there were at least occasional cases where both villages were potentially wanted by an organization. (Ie, Estelbar and Rockholm, Acknor and Ankgrad, Delport and Dairuchi, Paavik and Stewartsville). I'm not sure where Ankgrad fits either.
As for reasoning, I don't know if this is possible, but why not have diplomacy going on (behind the scenes) between the villages? When one grows disatisfied enough with their city/commune, they start speaking with the next least satisfied village, and decide to form their own nation free of their apathetic/dominating/whatever overlords. The combination of each pair can have a different reason for trying to break away from the organizations (to go on the politics board). Estelbar and Acknor might involve the orcs taking furrikin hostages, forcing them to submit to a new 'empire'. Ankgrad and Southgard and Rockholm might all together want to form a dwarvish nation, where they aren't herded by the beardless children
. And I'm sure you can come up with more interesting ones.
But yes, beautiful solution.
I'm not sure I agree with reverse polarity villages always revolting together, though... I'd prefer there were at least occasional cases where both villages were potentially wanted by an organization. (Ie, Estelbar and Rockholm, Acknor and Ankgrad, Delport and Dairuchi, Paavik and Stewartsville). I'm not sure where Ankgrad fits either.
As for reasoning, I don't know if this is possible, but why not have diplomacy going on (behind the scenes) between the villages? When one grows disatisfied enough with their city/commune, they start speaking with the next least satisfied village, and decide to form their own nation free of their apathetic/dominating/whatever overlords. The combination of each pair can have a different reason for trying to break away from the organizations (to go on the politics board). Estelbar and Acknor might involve the orcs taking furrikin hostages, forcing them to submit to a new 'empire'. Ankgrad and Southgard and Rockholm might all together want to form a dwarvish nation, where they aren't herded by the beardless children
. And I'm sure you can come up with more interesting ones.But yes, beautiful solution.
Unknown2006-02-13 00:18:37
Edit: Gah, double post. Silly forums.
While I've got the post space... Verithrax, doesn't the administrator idea sort of decrease the incentive of capturing villages? As long as you've got one, you throw all your administrators in it and get only slightly less output than the other org which has six villages. If they're killable, some organizations will almost never have them alive, and controlling more villages makes protecting them more difficult.
The cascade effect, while perhaps realistic, is too hard on players. Some people get tired after one village, and you're suggesting that as soon as one nears completion, another goes up. Also, in practice remember that if many villages go up together, its going to be quite a long time before they go up again. So you're going to intensify the length of village influence, but make it much more rare. This is one direction I had thought we didn't want to go.
While I've got the post space... Verithrax, doesn't the administrator idea sort of decrease the incentive of capturing villages? As long as you've got one, you throw all your administrators in it and get only slightly less output than the other org which has six villages. If they're killable, some organizations will almost never have them alive, and controlling more villages makes protecting them more difficult.
The cascade effect, while perhaps realistic, is too hard on players. Some people get tired after one village, and you're suggesting that as soon as one nears completion, another goes up. Also, in practice remember that if many villages go up together, its going to be quite a long time before they go up again. So you're going to intensify the length of village influence, but make it much more rare. This is one direction I had thought we didn't want to go.
Unknown2006-02-13 00:37:45
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Feb 12 2006, 08:11 PM) 257349
I'm going to reproduce the idea I had in that other thread:
Each city/commune has ten 'administrators'. The actual denizen changes from city to commune; Magnagora has slave drivers, for example. Celest has preachers, Glomdoring has villagemasters, Serenwilde has ecologists, Hallifax has bureaucrats, and so on.
City leaders can assign administrators to villages, but they have different effects, all beneficial; villages without administrators, or villages with only one, will lose some productivity and revolt faster; having a single administrator stops them from revolting faster, but still impairs production. Possible effects:
Serenwilde Ecologists increase production of leather, wood and food commodities.
Celestian preachers increase the Power output of a village.
Magnagoran slave drivers make revolts more frequent, but increase the output of metals.
Glomdoring village masters increase production of silk and wood, making the village revolt more slowly. Production of a few random commodities is reduced slightly, though, as the villagers turn into zombies.
That way, the less villages you have the more they produce. Capturing too many villages means their production is low. Village's overall Power and commodity output would be reduced to reflect this change.
Administration effects don't stack very well: 2 administrators have 100% effect each, 3 have 90%, 4 have 80%, and so on. 10 is a nice round number, but it could be five.
Killing administrators would be possible, but they would have a couple of burly bodiguards with them at all times. They'd wander through the village. Administrators would cost gold and Power to recover once they're killed.
Also, empowering an administrator would increase his efficiency for one month, slightly; making him paranoid would decrease it. Administrators would take an unusually long time to become laidback again (After all, they're bureaucrats with slow minds).
Adding to this, administrators can either get killed or kicked out during a revolt. Which one happens is semi-random, depending on how angry and violent the village is; Acknor and Angkrag always kill administrators, Estelbar and Delport never kill them. Magnagoran administrators would have a higher chance of being killed, Celestian ones a lower chance.
Another possibility:
The longer a village revolts, the more likely a nearby village will revolt as well - If you take more than thirty minutes to take Estelbar, Angkrag revolts. This forms a cascading effect; if a whole hour goes without Acknor being taken over, Angkrag revolts. If Angkrag stays up for more than one hour and a half, Rockholm goes up, and so on. This makes sense ICly, as seeing a nearby village revolt will inspire other villages to join in. Occasionally you'd have a simultaneous revolt, in which two villages that were going to revolt almost at the same time conspire to revolt together; villages that are enemies (Rockholm and Southgard, for example) never revolt together. Of course, if a village revolt happens at a very low-traffic time, we could have four or five villages revolting together - but that would be fun, interesting, and even realistic.
That sounds neat!
Sekreh2006-02-13 01:30:29
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Feb 12 2006, 06:58 PM) 257418
Read my original post carefully. If you had a village up for three hours:
Village A revolts.
Half an hour later, village B revolts.
An hour later, village C revolts.
An hour and a half later, vilalge D revolts.
That's four villages, not six.Besides, the times I post are suggestions; it can be much longer than that. The point is that instead of villages revolting together suddenly for not reason, it would take some time for the rebellion to spread. It would also give people more reason to end rebellions quickly by making agreements, instead of letting everything revolt.
I like this idea. Out of every reason presented in this thread that multiple villages would revolt at once, I like this one the best. Estarra, if you want to do two at once, I would adopt a comparable system, have one revolt, and then as time goes on, other villages would have an increased probablity, as per this suggestion.
It could work like this. At the time of revolt for village A, there's some threshold level of control. All the villages are checked against it, if any are below that level, one at random results, and there's your two. That would only happen if it was really really close to revolting anyhow.
If not, then over time, as people failed to influence village A, that threshold would decrease, until eventually you would have two revolts. I don't know about having more than two, but the "They revolted, which has prompted us to revolt" idea makes sense, as does the concept that over time, "chain reaction" revolts would become increasingly likely.
Verithrax2006-02-13 01:45:13
QUOTE(Avaer @ Feb 12 2006, 10:18 PM) 257424
Edit: Gah, double post. Silly forums.
While I've got the post space... Verithrax, doesn't the administrator idea sort of decrease the incentive of capturing villages? As long as you've got one, you throw all your administrators in it and get only slightly less output than the other org which has six villages. If they're killable, some organizations will almost never have them alive, and controlling more villages makes protecting them more difficult.
The cascade effect, while perhaps realistic, is too hard on players. Some people get tired after one village, and you're suggesting that as soon as one nears completion, another goes up. Also, in practice remember that if many villages go up together, its going to be quite a long time before they go up again. So you're going to intensify the length of village influence, but make it much more rare. This is one direction I had thought we didn't want to go.
The administrator idea kind of balances things, but not so much; one village with ten administrators on it will never be as productive as six or seven villages, but it would be much more productive than a single village with two or three administrators. It also makes it realistically harder to control many villages; after you have five villages, your administration starts to spread thin, and keeping the villages becomes harder. And they'd be killable, but not easily; they'd be inside a village protected by guards, with two bodyguards which are much stronger than regular guards; the admin himself wouldn't be very strong but he'd have fast eq and shield all the time. It would take a group of people to kill one, since void would only leave a short window during which it's possible to attack him, and the bodyguards would really hurt. Besides, when killed, he can be brought back after a few days, for a price in gold, Power, or comms. It would be impossible to keep an orgs' administrators dead for an extended period of time.
The cascade effect is a more realistic and less draining way of having more than one village revolt at the same time, and the actual time it takes for the next village over to revolt would be fine tuned. But I think that long, draining village revolts would be impossible if you have four villages up at the same time - People would divide and each org would take a single vilallage. It's better to jump onto the village nobody is trying to take, than to risk losing both the village that's being fought over and the one that's been left alone. It adds some strategy, and it makes it harder for a single org to concentrate lots of power. It also gives people a reason to try and stop village revolts fast, by making agreements and alliances.
Sylphas2006-02-13 01:54:13
QUOTE(Wesmin @ Feb 12 2006, 06:05 PM) 257400
Still If it wouldn't resort to that I'd love this change, it would solve Celest/Serenwilde tensions completely over villages. *le sigh*
Celest and Seren NEED tension. I don't want a 2vs2 game all the damn time.
Tsuki2006-02-13 02:01:06
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Feb 12 2006, 03:41 PM) 257358
2) This is likely to lead to a situation in which we'd all have to watch our villages like hawks and stop -every- novice or player who tries to do the comms quest or village quest. Which will be a -massive- pain for demesning guilds... and will just make life harder for all of us.
I agree with this and with what Wesmin said about it, with the restrictions we'd then have to have on novices and newbies. And how frustrating it is when Innocents come around anywhere doing things that they can't be stopped from doing. It'd also make things more difficult rather than easier for areas with less people, as they wouldn't have the numbers to keep watch as they'd need to. And even for places with more people, not many are inclined to do little more than sit around in a village/area or wander between a few with their time available to play the game. Playability and enjoyment need to come first, and be possible without too much sacrifice.
QUOTE
Village A revolts.
Half an hour later, village B revolts.
An hour later, village C revolts.
An hour and a half later, vilalge D revolts.
While this would make sense, it also puts more stress on us the players and could easily lead to an area losing all of their villages in the space of a few hours or more. We already know that the longer a village is open for influencing the more stressful it gets (who else remembers the 8 hr Stewartsville influencing session?) and the more depressing it is to lose at the end. So just imagine being around for a situation such as the one proposed, and trying to influence for hours only to lose several villages anyway. I think this is probably another place where realism would be imposing too much over enjoyment and playability.
Unknown2006-02-13 02:08:41
I think I'd rather see a more developed system of feedback. You're killing miners? It's going to make the village revolt faster but it also makes it harder for your city/commune to influence the village. You're doing comm quests? Oh goodie, villages like that, we'll stay with you longer and it will be easier for you to influence us next time.
Shorlen2006-02-13 02:31:44
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Feb 12 2006, 06:58 PM) 257418
Read my original post carefully. If you had a village up for three hours:
Village A revolts.
Half an hour later, village B revolts.
An hour later, village C revolts.
An hour and a half later, vilalge D revolts.
That's four villages, not six.Besides, the times I post are suggestions; it can be much longer than that. The point is that instead of villages revolting together suddenly for not reason, it would take some time for the rebellion to spread. It would also give people more reason to end rebellions quickly by making agreements, instead of letting everything revolt.
I absolutely and completely LOATHE this idea. Four village revolts at once is not fun - the only people I can see arguing for something that absurd are the people who never participate in the revolts as far as I have seen. What's the strategy? Run around as fast as you can? It gives WAY too much of an advantage to Wiccans, for one. It makes those 4-6 hours of the game matter an absurd amount, which stinks for the people who aren't logged in at the time. It gives a very strong home-field advantage, as every org is going to start melding all of their other villages when one revolts. It requires players to travel from one village to the next a lot, defeating the purpose of conglutination in revolting villages.
I see many of these things adding a lot of stress to the game, and adding very little. All I see it adding is the handing of villages to the 'weaker' organizations with no effort on their part, and adding nothing else to the game that can't be achieved in other ways. Those who have many villages should be at a disadvantage when influencing more - this puts everyone on equal footing always, but arbitrarily and contrively prevents an org from having more than a few villages.
Malicia2006-02-13 03:41:21
I wouldn't mind to see them revolt in pairs.
Serrin2006-02-13 05:45:00
My concern would be what happens when there are 3 orgs with a low population about and 1 org with a large? The large org will swarm one village and influence it quickly while the other 3 compete (possibly for hours) over the remaining village and then the large org will just come in and take over anyways.
Maybe make it so that the revolting villages are actually polar opposites and if 1 org takes one of them, the other becomes much more resistant to take-over by that org.
Maybe make it so that the revolting villages are actually polar opposites and if 1 org takes one of them, the other becomes much more resistant to take-over by that org.
Daganev2006-02-13 05:56:00
QUOTE(Estarra @ Feb 12 2006, 10:01 AM) 257309
As mentioned in a prior thread on villages, we have been seriously considering a dramatic change to the way villages revolt.
In order to have a wider spread of cities/communes control villages, I propose the following change: villages always revolt in pairs. (We would drop the current system of hostilities between villages.) Thus, cities and communes would always have to compete over two villages at the same time, making it less likely (though not impossible) for a city to take both villages. It would also give more of a chance to the less developed cities or communes.
However, this would leave a large hole in the political system as governing style and political structure would become meaningless. They currently modify the length of time that a village is held, making it would be unfair that one village would hold another village back if they revolted in pairs. Instead, I propose a new system of village feelings. How the village is governed reflects how difficult the village is to influence the next time. Also, we can also have killing villagers and doing commodity quests slightly adjust the village feelings towards a certain commune/city.
There has been some disagreement between Roark and I regarding how to pair villages and the IC reasons why the villages would revolt simultaneously. My thought was to have villages under certain astrological signs and have them revolt during some transit during those signs. Roark thinks that is contrived and argues for more political reasons or variations (such as a dark alliance between angkrag and acknor so they always revolt at the same time). I would prefer keeping the pairs together based on their commodity quest polarity, which is:
Estelbar and Acknor
Stewartsville and Delport
Rockholm and Southgard
Angkrag and Dairuchi
Paavik and Shanthmark
Let us know your thoughts, opinions and alternate ideas!
Here are my thoughts on the issue.
Going up the post in reverse order:
Pairs of villages: I think a good reason for the pairs of villages to revolt together is because of a trade conspiracy, as a real world example.. OPEC. When villages of similar commodity types revolt, they do so in pairs in as an attempt to "fix" the prices and create a 'false competition'... i.e. ensuring there is no 'monolopy'...
Edit: Just to clarify, when one village revolts, another village that specializes in one of the trade commodities that the original village hold, would revolt also. So the village that makes silk revolts, then another village that specilizes in silk would revolt also.
It would be GREAT if the type of government you had did not affect how long the village lasts, but rather HOw much you can gain from the village while you hold it, in exchange for how hard the village is to influence next time you try.
Also, I think it would be WONDERFULLY AMAZING, to have the act of commodity quests increase the feelings the villages have towards you, and have the killing of villagers decrease the feelings. As well as having, the killing of enemies to the village increase the feelings, and killing non-enemies to a village, decrease the feelings. In my opinion, I think this would make it so that questing, and not PKing in a village will have a greater affect.
I have not read any other replies, so sorry if I repeat what people have allreayd said.
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Feb 12 2006, 12:41 PM) 257358
That makes a huge amount of OOC sense.. but is it going to make finding RP reasons harder?
In my mind it makes the revolts make more RP sense. Villages are all about trade and influence, and to me that means economic ideas. Activities based on trade to me make more sense than some 'racial' seperatism when so much of the world is very much mixed, and people of opposite races have no issues influencing the mobs that in the 'village system' can't work together. (hope that made sense)
Shorlen2006-02-13 06:22:53
QUOTE(Serrin @ Feb 13 2006, 12:45 AM) 257517
My concern would be what happens when there are 3 orgs with a low population about and 1 org with a large? The large org will swarm one village and influence it quickly while the other 3 compete (possibly for hours) over the remaining village and then the large org will just come in and take over anyways.
Maybe make it so that the revolting villages are actually polar opposites and if 1 org takes one of them, the other becomes much more resistant to take-over by that org.
This basically enforces smaller battles over villages with less on each side, I'd think, if it was essentially impossible to take both villages that revolted. I don't want to see the four way battles go away - I really like them
Narsrim2006-02-13 07:02:24
QUOTE(Estarra @ Feb 12 2006, 01:01 PM) 257309
Estelbar and Acknor
Stewartsville and Delport
Rockholm and Southgard
Angkrag and Dairuchi
Paavik and Shanthmark
Let us know your thoughts, opinions and alternate ideas!
I don't like this setup. It makes no sense whatsoever for Serenwilde or Celest to influenced a tainted, undead infested village that seeks to enslave dwarves. Thus, Dairuchi is not in the equation fairly. Magnagora and Glomdoring can ALWAYS go for Dairuchi against Serenwilde or Celest leaving Angkrag for later - and no one would challenge that.
I would switch it to this:
QUOTE
Angkrag and Acknor
Stewartsville and Delport
Rockholm and Southgard
Estelbar and Dairuchi
Paavik and Shanthmark
Stewartsville and Delport
Rockholm and Southgard
Estelbar and Dairuchi
Paavik and Shanthmark
I think this is more balanced.
