Xenthos2006-02-13 18:30:23
QUOTE(Narsrim @ Feb 13 2006, 01:11 PM) 257688
I think this raises additional roleplay concerns. First, why would anyone who is opposed to Crow or the taint/wyrd wear an item symbolic of him to talk with the undead?
Amaru steals them from time to time... I'd assume that he sees it as "using the enemies weapons against themselves" or something of the sort.
Narsrim2006-02-13 18:33:51
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Feb 13 2006, 01:30 PM) 257702
Amaru steals them from time to time... I'd assume that he sees it as "using the enemies weapons against themselves" or something of the sort.
Amaru also had tainted persons kill Thoril once when Celest had Southgard. Each organization has its corrupted member.
However, there is more to Celest than Amaru. In fact, half the city tried to kick him out (and did kick him out for a short period) at one point.
Daganev2006-02-13 19:06:25
QUOTE(Shamarah @ Feb 13 2006, 10:24 AM) 257700
There'd at least have to be some justification, though. When Celest took Acknor we did it so we could end the slavery (which we did). But Angkrag? Not really happening.
Whats wrong with the justification I came up with?
With my idea Two villages would revolt at the same time, but it would not always be the same two villages. Rather they would be based on the commodites that they share.
So sometimes Ankgrag and Southgard will revolt together, and sometimes Ankgrag and Daruchi would revolt together.
There are MANY ic sollutions for Celest and Serenwilde to either get Ankgrag, or prevent Magnagora from just going for the other village before they go for Ankgrag, and I am sure the player base it resourcefull enough to find those ways if they so DESIRE them.
Unknown2006-02-13 19:12:28
QUOTE
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.
I'm more for this idea then simply for two villages revolting at same time. Times could be adjusted, maybe as well as factors like government style and commidty quests done by the village holding them, etc. Because maybe say Rockholm decides they like the way Serenwilde treats them, and decides not to revolt.
I also think it should be much harder, if not impossible for a org who controls a village to also take control of it's counter, such as Southgard/Rockholm or Estelbar/Acknor, etc.
Narsrim2006-02-13 19:17:16
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 13 2006, 02:06 PM) 257709
There are MANY ic sollutions for Celest and Serenwilde to either get Ankgrag, or prevent Magnagora from just going for the other village before they go for Ankgrag, and I am sure the player base it resourcefull enough to find those ways if they so DESIRE them.
They go something like this:
Attention Serenwilde - we are currently in the process of ignoring White Hart's opinion of Crow and will be distributing Crow cloaks, which we stole. Our target is Angkrag, where each of you will be expected to influence a tainted lich and murder dwarves so they can be raised as undead miners. You are also to be nice to the tainted orclachs aka orcs.
And remember, the skeletons may be somewhat creepy, but nothing matter to us anymore except power and some commodities, which we have enough of at the moment that we could literally wipe our bums with marble, gold, iron, or silver if it wasn't such a painful alternative.
Thank you and as always, embrace Crow. Don a Crow cloak and be off, children of Mother Moon and the White Hart.
Daganev2006-02-13 19:23:40
Not to get off track, but Can't you just kill all the undead creatures and then influence the live ones?
Anyway, My main point was the IC reasoning of shared Commodities for shared Revolts, with a slight twist of having a slightly random factor of which commodity is shared between the villages.
Anyway, My main point was the IC reasoning of shared Commodities for shared Revolts, with a slight twist of having a slightly random factor of which commodity is shared between the villages.
Shamarah2006-02-13 19:24:23
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 13 2006, 02:23 PM) 257720
Not to get off track, but Can't you just kill all the undead creatures and then influence the live ones?
...
If you actually think that's a viable option I just don't know what to say.
Narsrim2006-02-13 19:33:31
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 13 2006, 02:23 PM) 257720
Not to get off track, but Can't you just kill all the undead creatures and then influence the live ones?
Help Sanctuary. It isn't even possible to keep something dead in a village let alone kill EVERYTHING except for like 5 creatures.
Nyla2006-02-13 19:40:03
After one village has been uninfluenced for about an hour, thoughts begin to creep into the minds of the other villages of how the last time they were uninfluenced for so long was when Viravain was possesed(sp?) by Kethuru and the villagers begin to panic and the village becomes unstable and revolt. It would then work exponentially (man I cant spell today) with the next village revolting two and a half hours after the second village revolted.
The order in which the villages revolted after the first one would be determined by a score that takes into effect the amount of comm quests done while held under the city/commune's protection (taking in to consideration the amount of time spent under that city/commune's influence) During influencing they would take into consideration how many members or organization A have slain them and how many are enemies of the village and make it harder to influence.
The order in which the villages revolted after the first one would be determined by a score that takes into effect the amount of comm quests done while held under the city/commune's protection (taking in to consideration the amount of time spent under that city/commune's influence) During influencing they would take into consideration how many members or organization A have slain them and how many are enemies of the village and make it harder to influence.
Daganev2006-02-13 19:43:06
I think thats a bit too complicated.
Shorlen2006-02-13 22:38:44
Shorlen has, and uses, a Crow Cloak. He has his RP reasons, which I see no reason to get into here. There is a problem, however, in how he acquired it. Someone (who shall remain nameless, but wasn't a Serenwilder) pinned down a near-novice and stole everything he had, and then returned the rest after a bit of time. The near-novice Blacktalon was so upset over this, he quit Lusternia.
Is this what we have to do to influence the undead? Mass theft from near-novices in Glomdoring? If this is wanted and endorsed by the administration, we can go and see how many people we can get to quit the game - I'll start immediately.
Is this what we have to do to influence the undead? Mass theft from near-novices in Glomdoring? If this is wanted and endorsed by the administration, we can go and see how many people we can get to quit the game - I'll start immediately.
Daganev2006-02-13 22:53:00
Please keep this thread on track.
Are there any arguments against having villages revolt in pairs based on the commodities they produce? Any reason why this would be 'shady rp'?
Are there any arguments against having villages revolt in pairs based on the commodities they produce? Any reason why this would be 'shady rp'?
Narsrim2006-02-13 22:55:46
It was mentioned earlier that the price of eggs and sugar aren't necessarily impacting factors on villages rebelling together.
Daganev2006-02-13 23:10:51
Why not?
In the real world, you have the Meat Lobbyists, and you have the Dairy lobbyists, all supporting or rejecting leaders based on thier economic policies, and working with people they might otherwise not work with.
Thats how OPEC tries to work in the modern world even on a much larger scale because its a much more important commodity.
Also, Sugar and eggs are not the ony commodities that villages share. I think the mechanics would work more along the lines of Wood, Silk, Marble, Metals, Cloth, Leather and then maybe Foodstuffs as a single unit.
In the real world, you have the Meat Lobbyists, and you have the Dairy lobbyists, all supporting or rejecting leaders based on thier economic policies, and working with people they might otherwise not work with.
Thats how OPEC tries to work in the modern world even on a much larger scale because its a much more important commodity.
Also, Sugar and eggs are not the ony commodities that villages share. I think the mechanics would work more along the lines of Wood, Silk, Marble, Metals, Cloth, Leather and then maybe Foodstuffs as a single unit.
Shorlen2006-02-13 23:13:32
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 13 2006, 06:10 PM) 257898
Why not?
In the real world, you have the Meat Lobbyists, and you have the Dairy lobbyists, all supporting or rejecting leaders based on thier economic policies, and working with people they might otherwise not work with.
Thats how OPEC tries to work in the modern world even on a much larger scale because its a much more important commodity.
Also, Sugar and eggs are not the ony commodities that villages share. I think the mechanics would work more along the lines of Wood, Silk, Marble, Metals, Cloth, Leather and then maybe Foodstuffs as a single unit.
I agree. Every gem producing village should revolt at once. And by this, I mean, every village in the basin. It'll be a massive and messy bloodbath and who wins will be completely random. Isn't that wonderful? /sarcasm
Daganev2006-02-13 23:20:55
That would have been an interesting thing to happen when people were buying all the gems just for the powerstones... I was unaware that every village had a special gem cutting facility though...
Each village will sell any commodity if you give the raw materials to the comm shop owner... however not every village has every room for specially giving specific comms such as gems.
Each village will sell any commodity if you give the raw materials to the comm shop owner... however not every village has every room for specially giving specific comms such as gems.
Unknown2006-02-14 00:42:31
I liked the idea of pairs of villages trying to form their own new little nations. I think it could be quite amusing.
Cwin2006-02-14 01:03:16
An idea on the RP reasoning for twin-revolts: War.
Competing villages are not just economic rivals but..well.. downright hostile to each other. As such, overtime the two villages are causing issues to each other. Eventually the pot boils over and the two villages get absolutely violent. Each side rushes over to "attack" (we're talking farmers with pitchforks here, not Ur'Guards and Moondancers), the peace is lost, and control is lost to boot. In some villages, SOME order is obtained by the leadership via Peace Invokation, though that doesn't stop general chaos from brewing.
The result?
Two villages at a time revolt: Delport and Stewardsville for example
The general chaos disrupts the nation's control over the village (control requires power. Chaos is bad for this link. Link breaks, control lost. A LITTLE BS but sustainable).
Influencing session starts. Nations can do two things:
1: Influence a village into joining your nation, which calms the citizens and brings them to your cause. It also weakens SLIGHTLY the opposing village's stance towards you.
2: Kill (if unpeaced) or Weaken (Influence skill) a village, strengthening the RIVAL's village to your cause and weakening the opposing village to your cause. Weaken or kill someone from Stewards and Delport becomes closer to you, as if you influenced a similar weighted villager. Stewards weakens in the same weight. Note, enemy status won't come if you kill in a war.
The warring can be shown by a village having 'invaders' from the rival villages on the roads (read: NPC unnamed villagers loyal to other village described as "angry farmer" or "nervous furrikin soldier" just wandering around: no need for anything too code intensive: Note they could be influenced/killed/weakened for whatever village they are loyal to)
Note that this would make it very difficult to claim both villages, but definatly NOT imposible, especially if you can succeed in claiming one while putting just enough effort in the other to keep it going. On the other hand, a nation can QUICKLY gain one village by influencing one village and slaughtering/weakening (or both?) the rival village.
The RP to bring this about would consist of several events that bring the rivalry into outright hostility. After the events, the new system would make sense.
Competing villages are not just economic rivals but..well.. downright hostile to each other. As such, overtime the two villages are causing issues to each other. Eventually the pot boils over and the two villages get absolutely violent. Each side rushes over to "attack" (we're talking farmers with pitchforks here, not Ur'Guards and Moondancers), the peace is lost, and control is lost to boot. In some villages, SOME order is obtained by the leadership via Peace Invokation, though that doesn't stop general chaos from brewing.
The result?
Two villages at a time revolt: Delport and Stewardsville for example
The general chaos disrupts the nation's control over the village (control requires power. Chaos is bad for this link. Link breaks, control lost. A LITTLE BS but sustainable).
Influencing session starts. Nations can do two things:
1: Influence a village into joining your nation, which calms the citizens and brings them to your cause. It also weakens SLIGHTLY the opposing village's stance towards you.
2: Kill (if unpeaced) or Weaken (Influence skill) a village, strengthening the RIVAL's village to your cause and weakening the opposing village to your cause. Weaken or kill someone from Stewards and Delport becomes closer to you, as if you influenced a similar weighted villager. Stewards weakens in the same weight. Note, enemy status won't come if you kill in a war.
The warring can be shown by a village having 'invaders' from the rival villages on the roads (read: NPC unnamed villagers loyal to other village described as "angry farmer" or "nervous furrikin soldier" just wandering around: no need for anything too code intensive: Note they could be influenced/killed/weakened for whatever village they are loyal to)
Note that this would make it very difficult to claim both villages, but definatly NOT imposible, especially if you can succeed in claiming one while putting just enough effort in the other to keep it going. On the other hand, a nation can QUICKLY gain one village by influencing one village and slaughtering/weakening (or both?) the rival village.
The RP to bring this about would consist of several events that bring the rivalry into outright hostility. After the events, the new system would make sense.
Estarra2006-02-14 04:37:30
QUOTE(Cwin @ Feb 13 2006, 05:03 PM) 257937
An idea on the RP reasoning for twin-revolts: War.
Cwin, that's definitely an intriguing idea. I'm going to think on it.
Unknown2006-02-14 04:46:05
QUOTE(Estarra @ Feb 13 2006, 11:37 PM) 258003
Cwin, that's definitely an intriguing idea. I'm going to think on it.
The best RP reason for revolts would also be the worst in terms of playability.
A village revolts from Magnagora, Celest takes it.
Other villagers in Magnagora's Empire whisper to each other in dark allys "Maybe we can break away too."
Soon all the Magnagorian Villages are revolting, and Magnagora loses 4-5, maybe all of them.
Yes, this would be the most realist, and yes this would be utterly horrible in terms of playability.
You'd go to sleep one night, with your Nation having every single village, wake up the next day and have none. Hard work in individual villages would mean little, and villages would turn into what Faethorn has become. I hope something like this would never be implimented.